So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
I'm glad I don't have a vote. If I had an attractive 14 year old daughter, I certainly wouldn't leave her in the same room as Trump. But, voting for Hilary means supporting illegal immigration and safe spaces on universities.
Yes, I'd hate to be a voter in the election.
its a tough one: vote for a crazy facist or someone who support safe spaces. What to do...
Clinton stands for everything I'm against. Curtailing freedoms, warmongering, positive discrimination and, of course, safe spaces. I would vote for any other republican candidate in this cycle and were Trump not such a terrible idea I'd vote for Johnson even if he is a bit clueless. I loathe everything Clinton stands for, Trump being an all round awful person doesn't change that fact.
Pretty much agree with every word of that. Also to add that if Trump wins, his mad ideas will be moderated by those around him, whereas if Hillary wins her mad ideas will be encouraged by those around her.
It truly is the Alien vs Predator election though. Can't the poor Americans have a RON option on the ballot?
If you finding the thought of Hillary V Trump depressing, then you can cheer yourself up with this amusing video:
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
Although most of the anecdotes and panic came from SeanT!
SeanT does always tend to the extreme:
" We have to be in the single market, to save the economy, to save the union. And if we have to be in the single market, we may as well be in the EEA. We're just gonna have to suck it up, re Free Movement, and try and do something on benefits as a pull-factor. And the EEA model is there, it can be taken down from the shelf and used almost at once. And we NEED to act fast as trust and confidence are ebbing away.
People on here might not believe it but I have friends who already losing lots of money, businesses wobbling etc
That's it. That's the choice, if we are going to LEAVE it's EEA. Once you grasp this it gets a lot easier.
The only alternatives are rerunning the referendum, or ignoring the result. "
I wonder how his money losing, business wobbling friends are doing now ?
I am though rather curious as to how MaxPB's share options turned out in the end:
" Well it's pretty glum in the office since a lot of us get paid our bonuses in options, the company share price isn't looking too hot at the moment. I don't think it's anything more than a temporary blip if we stay in the single market, without it we are looking at the break up of the Union and between 3 and 7 years of hard work to get us back on an even keel. "
Still doing quite poorly.
Sorry about that. But hopefully better than three months ago ?
A great qualifying performance from Mr Button. Into Q3 in his 300th race.
Yes, hopefully he can get in front of the FI and Williams cars in Q3. Alonso's new engine brings a couple of tenths as well so McLaren could justify a claim to fourth best car by the end of the season. Not bad for a car that started worse than Haas.
So basically thehe opinion polls are all over the place and no one has the faintest idea what will happen.
Not really, with the exception of the La Times tracker the national polls are all saying Clinton leads.
Gravis and UPI have the candidates tied, but overall, Clinton is about 4% ahead.
It's a fascinating contest.
I struggle with Trump; I understand the (rightful) well of anger he's tapped in to. But find him an even more flawed personality than Clinton: what he says about women and young girls makes my skin crawl, and his views on whether a Judge of Hispanic origin could be impartial seem more 1950s that 2016. There seems no shortage of evidence that he lies as much as "crooked Hillary", and his claims in the Republican debate about a casino development in Florida flatly contradict those he gave under oath. (It seems richly ironic, then, that he's chosen to make the contest about honesty.)
If a forced choice, I would go for Hillary. But, really, I'd rather Kasich or Bush or almost any other Republican were on the ticket.
Except Cruz.
Who will probably be the Republican candidate next time. They do know how to pick 'em.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. ......
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I don't know anything about Colchester, and agree re South West London and SW England!
My only caveat is that if UKIP remains strong in Cornwall/Devon, perhaps because Mrs May negotiates something less t.....)
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at SNIP.
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boundaries.
A bit early to predict Lib Dem seats due to how the boundaries may work out and the anti-Corbyn effects, but FWIW my range is 1-20 on the new boundaries. My GE2015 forecast was under 25 for the Lib Dems so I was far too optimistic for them a year ago. Although way below most of the forecasts from Lib Dems on PB!
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
Agreed. Add in Pugh and Clegg as probable retirements. Also boundary changes diminish the benefits of incumbency. The 1 LD in 2020 would be Tim Farron in my estimate.
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
As always, anything you write has to be taken through the prism of utter Tory partisanship (stifles a yawn). Lamb is locally popular, but the constituency has developed an increasingly liberal bent at local and national level since I voted there in 1997. It relies heavily on wildlife tourism for one, and the Tories are not seen as good on wildlife. And NNorfolk is full of wealthy greenish retirees who have gone there for the wildlife too. Keep dreaming.
As for SW London, maybe, but I foresee more of a Comeback.
48% or more agree with Soubry. Who'd have thought it?
Fox is still out there Unicorn watching as far as I can see. Idiot.
What has Fox said?
Fox is delusional because he doesn't understand how the WTO works, especially the prospect of dealing with Most Favoured Nation status. It means that his liberalisation of markets issue will become one sided in dealing with the EU, because we cannot set a retaliatory tariff against a trade block, even if they set a high barrier to us (i.e 10% on cars) without that being our barrier to the whole world.
48% or more agree with Soubry. Who'd have thought it?
Fox is still out there Unicorn watching as far as I can see. Idiot.
What has Fox said?
Fox is delusional because he doesn't understand how the WTO works, especially the prospect of dealing with Most Favoured Nation status. It means that his liberalisation of markets issue will become one sided in dealing with the EU, because we cannot set a retaliatory tariff against a trade block, even if they set a high barrier to us (i.e 10% on cars) without that being our barrier to the whole world.
Wouldn't our Most Favoured Nation tariffs be the same as the EU ones, at least at first? That would suggest the same retaliatory barriers on both sides if no deal was struck.
The barriers to other countries would depend on what deal we agreed with them, if I understand things rightly.
48% or more agree with Soubry. Who'd have thought it?
Fox is still out there Unicorn watching as far as I can see. Idiot.
What has Fox said?
Fox is delusional because he doesn't understand how the WTO works, especially the prospect of dealing with Most Favoured Nation status. It means that his liberalisation of markets issue will become one sided in dealing with the EU, because we cannot set a retaliatory tariff against a trade block, even if they set a high barrier to us (i.e 10% on cars) without that being our barrier to the whole world.
If the EU believe we are preparing for a hard brexit then they are more likely to fear the worst and settle for something better. Cameron never threatened to back a LEAVE position so the EU knew it did not need to give up much. That said there is clearly a streak of economic stupidity throughout the EU which may cause a hard brexit. But that comes back to the underlying faults within the EU.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
As always, anything you write has to be taken through the prism of utter Tory partisanship (stifles a yawn). Lamb is locally popular, but the constituency has developed an increasingly liberal bent at local and national level since I voted there in 1997. It relies heavily on wildlife tourism for one, and the Tories are not seen as good on wildlife. And NNorfolk is full of wealthy greenish retirees who have gone there for the wildlife too. Keep dreaming.
As for SW London, maybe, but I foresee more of a Comeback.
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
As always, anything you write has to be taken through the prism of utter Tory partisanship (stifles a yawn). Lamb is locally popular, but the constituency has developed an increasingly liberal bent at local and national level since I voted there in 1997. It relies heavily on wildlife tourism for one, and the Tories are not seen as good on wildlife. And NNorfolk is full of wealthy greenish retirees who have gone there for the wildlife too. Keep dreaming.
As for SW London, maybe, but I foresee more of a Comeback.
If you're accusing AndyJS of 'utter Tory partianship' then you're exposing how little you know Andy and all the excellent work he has done on this and other sites.
There are many PBers who have made good money from Andy's electoral analyses.
A great qualifying performance from Mr Button. Into Q3 in his 300th race.
Yes, hopefully he can get in front of the FI and Williams cars in Q3. Alonso's new engine brings a couple of tenths as well so McLaren could justify a claim to fourth best car by the end of the season. Not bad for a car that started worse than Haas.
Well he beat the Williams. Good result for the Red Bulls in front of the red cars too.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
I don't think anyone could accuse Liam Fox as wanting Brexit for economically protectionist reasons.
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
As always, anything you write has to be taken through the prism of utter Tory partisanship (stifles a yawn). Lamb is locally popular, but the constituency has developed an increasingly liberal bent at local and national level since I voted there in 1997. It relies heavily on wildlife tourism for one, and the Tories are not seen as good on wildlife. And NNorfolk is full of wealthy greenish retirees who have gone there for the wildlife too. Keep dreaming.
As for SW London, maybe, but I foresee more of a Comeback.
I'm a floating voter not a Tory.
And a fantastic electoral analyst, whose referendum night spreadsheet made a lot of people here much richer
A great qualifying performance from Mr Button. Into Q3 in his 300th race.
Yes, hopefully he can get in front of the FI and Williams cars in Q3. Alonso's new engine brings a couple of tenths as well so McLaren could justify a claim to fourth best car by the end of the season. Not bad for a car that started worse than Haas.
Well he beat the Williams. Good result for the Red Bulls in front of the red cars too.
Yes, some possible controversy as well on Rosberg's second lap as it appeared he had all four wheels off the track. RBR might go to the stewards and get his fast lap deleted which would put Rosberg down in sixth.
Darling, let us spend the night, Sashay past St Mary’s Castle, Home to bed, dim the light, I’ll move your world throughout the night, Oh, honeyed words are most enticing, Loving you is so exciting. But why dear heart, did you not mention, What we’ll do for contraception? ‘Don’t you worry, we’ll be fine, ‘Take a risk, just this time, ‘Tonight’s for pleasure, take a chance, ‘Think of now, and our romance.’ Oh, darling you are less appealing. What you say is so revealing, If risk is in your mood and speech, How about bingo on the beach?"
"I think a great many feminists would not consider Paglia one of their number."
I'm not surprised. I suspect Germaine Greer also remains in the doghouse.
Here's an interesting quote from Wiki ... "Paglia wrote that she "nearly came to blows with the founding members of the women's studies program at the State University of New York at Albany, when they categorically denied that hormones influence human experience or behavior"
Better to be in the doghouse than to deny reality.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
Although most of the anecdotes and panic came from SeanT!
SeanT does always tend to the extreme:
" We have to be in the single market, to save the economy, to save the union. And if we have to be in the single market, we may as well be in the EEA. We're just gonna have to suck it up, re Free Movement, and try and do something on benefits as a pull-factor. And the EEA model is there, it can be taken down from the shelf and used almost at once. And we NEED to act fast as trust and confidence are ebbing away.
People on here might not believe it but I have friends who already losing lots of money, businesses wobbling etc
That's it. That's the choice, if we are going to LEAVE it's EEA. Once you grasp this it gets a lot easier.
The only alternatives are rerunning the referendum, or ignoring the result. "
I wonder how his money losing, business wobbling friends are doing now ?
I am though rather curious as to how MaxPB's share options turned out in the end:
" Well it's pretty glum in the office since a lot of us get paid our bonuses in options, the company share price isn't looking too hot at the moment. I don't think it's anything more than a temporary blip if we stay in the single market, without it we are looking at the break up of the Union and between 3 and 7 years of hard work to get us back on an even keel. "
Darling, let us spend the night, Sashay past St Mary’s Castle, Home to bed, dim the light, I’ll move your world throughout the night, Oh, honeyed words are most enticing, Loving you is so exciting. But why dear heart, did you not mention, What we’ll do for contraception? ‘Don’t you worry, we’ll be fine, ‘Take a risk, just this time, ‘Tonight’s for pleasure, take a chance, ‘Think of now, and our romance.’ Oh, darling you are less appealing. What you say is so revealing, If risk is in your mood and speech, How about bingo on the beach?"
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
As always, anything you write has to be taken through the prism of utter Tory partisanship (stifles a yawn). Lamb is locally popular, but the constituency has developed an increasingly liberal bent at local and national level since I voted there in 1997. It relies heavily on wildlife tourism for one, and the Tories are not seen as good on wildlife. And NNorfolk is full of wealthy greenish retirees who have gone there for the wildlife too. Keep dreaming.
As for SW London, maybe, but I foresee more of a Comeback.
I'm a floating voter not a Tory.
You must be joking. Pull the other one. After following your posts on various fora over the last electoral cycle, you're always bullish for Tory. In every situation.
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
As always, anything you write has to be taken through the prism of utter Tory partisanship (stifles a yawn). Lamb is locally popular, but the constituency has developed an increasingly liberal bent at local and national level since I voted there in 1997. It relies heavily on wildlife tourism for one, and the Tories are not seen as good on wildlife. And NNorfolk is full of wealthy greenish retirees who have gone there for the wildlife too. Keep dreaming.
As for SW London, maybe, but I foresee more of a Comeback.
I'm a floating voter not a Tory.
You must be joking. Pull the other one. After following your posts on various fora over the last electoral cycle, you're always bullish for Tory. In every situation.
Well given how the last election went that's not really a surprise. Looking at how the Labour party are doing now that's also not really a surprise.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for them in SW England, for the forseeable future. They'd have to win back votes from the Conservatives, UKIP, and Labour, which will be very hard. The Tories now have some huge majorities in that region, with a split opposition.
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boundaries.
A bit early to predict Lib Dem seats due to how the boundaries may work out and the anti-Corbyn effects, but FWIW my range is 1-20 on the new boundaries. My GE2015 forecast was under 25 for the Lib Dems so I was far too optimistic for them a year ago. Although way below most of the forecasts from Lib Dems on PB!
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
I think so too, but I am bearish on the very idea of personal mandates. Lots of LD MPs thought that their personal votes would save them, but they were wrong. I think that the effect is pretty slight and UNS generally the best indicator.
I suspect both will carry on though for 2020 at least.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
48% or more agree with Soubry. Who'd have thought it?
Fox is still out there Unicorn watching as far as I can see. Idiot.
What has Fox said?
Fox is delusional because he doesn't understand how the WTO works, especially the prospect of dealing with Most Favoured Nation status. It means that his liberalisation of markets issue will become one sided in dealing with the EU, because we cannot set a retaliatory tariff against a trade block, even if they set a high barrier to us (i.e 10% on cars) without that being our barrier to the whole world.
If the EU believe we are preparing for a hard brexit then they are more likely to fear the worst and settle for something better. Cameron never threatened to back a LEAVE position so the EU knew it did not need to give up much. That said there is clearly a streak of economic stupidity throughout the EU which may cause a hard brexit. But that comes back to the underlying faults within the EU.
This is the misunderstanding I think, that the EU will be particularly hurt by a 'hard' brexit. I'm not sure it will. Unless we intend to run similar tariffs to the common external tariff, throw out mutual recognition agreements, common authority for conformity on goods, then the effect on the EU will be minimal.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
Leaving the protectionist EU is not ironic.
Except that's a myth brought about by dishonest leaver rhetoric.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
Leaving the protectionist EU is not ironic.
Except that's a myth brought about by dishonest leaver rhetoric.
It's a myth that the EU is protectionist? So we have free trade with India and Australia and America and Africa do we?
Some strange comments re Lib Dems not recovering in the South West . The Lib Dems have already recovered substantially in Cornwall aided by a near collapse in UKIP organisation . A decent chance now of an overall Lib Dem majority on Cornwall UA next May despite the number of Independents . Watch for Lib Dem gains from Conservatives in Devon and Somerset in the next 2 months to follow up Teignmouth
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
My assumption, which could be completely wrong of course, is that the LibDems will get 10-14% of the vote. That means that - on proportional swing - they'll increase their vote share by 25-75%. Obviously, the increases will be less in places where the LDs are already doing well, and more where they are doing poorly. I.e., it'll look more like UNS than Proportional Swing.
(I would note that your analysis is pretty much describing the difference between UNS and Proportional Swing.)
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
I think the issue that will dominate the SW London seats of Sutton & Cheam, Richmond Park, Kingston & Surbiton, and Twickenham will be Heathrow Expansion. That those seats also contain some of the most pro-Remain areas in the country also benefits the LibDems.
If they make sweeping gains at the locals in 2018, retaking Kingston council for example, that will be a sign that the LDs are likely to grab a seat or two back in SW London in 2020.
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boundaries.
A bit early to predict Lib Dem seats due to how the boundaries may work out and the anti-Corbyn effects, but FWIW my range is 1-20 on the new boundaries. My GE2015 forecast was under 25 for the Lib Dems so I was far too optimistic for them a year ago. Although way below most of the forecasts from Lib Dems on PB!
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
I think so too, but I am bearish on the very idea of personal mandates. Lots of LD MPs thought that their personal votes would save them, but they were wrong. I think that the effect is pretty slight and UNS generally the best indicator.
I suspect both will carry on though for 2020 at least.
Incumbent Lib Dem MP's far outperformed their party generally, in 2015. The problem was that the Lib Dem vote fell so sharply that their personal vote couldn't save them.
Some strange comments re Lib Dems not recovering in the South West . The Lib Dems have already recovered substantially in Cornwall aided by a near collapse in UKIP organisation . A decent chance now of an overall Lib Dem majority on Cornwall UA next May despite the number of Independents . Watch for Lib Dem gains from Conservatives in Devon and Somerset in the next 2 months to follow up Teignmouth
I agree, UKIP barring a James revival, is for all intents and purposes dead. They've accomplished their mission and without a base of either local councillors or MPs they have little remaining purpose.
Nature abhors a vacuum though. The collapsed protest Lib Dem vote which went to UKIP last time will "return home" back to the Lib Dems if UKIP doesn't revive.
Theresa May has brought in Tony Blair's former policy chief to carry out a review of employment practices aimed at improving job security and rights for "ordinary working people".
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the RSA, will look at whether regulations are keeping pace with the "radically" changing labour market in a shake-up that will "prioritise the interests of the growing army of people working in new ways".
The focus on protections for workers is in stark contrast to predecessor David Cameron, who oversaw reforms of employment law to ensure that they would no longer be seen as a "barrier to growth".
Dont think she will be inviting Beecroft around any time soon.
When she was talking about the nasty party all those years ago she was talking about Osborne type flat tax, cut welfare for the terminally ill beecroftism.
Dave and Gideon foolishly thought that if they were outwarly nice to monirities who suffered from isms and phobias that the Guardian et al obsess over, no one would notice if they abolished welfare and employment rights.
No wonder she booted out Osborne so humiliatingly. Rarely are just desserts served up so brutally.
Which employment rights were you thinking of?
Remember the Beecroft Report. Proposed legalisation of non fault sacking. Employer could fire you at will without reason so long as they gave you sum equivalent to statutory redundancy. Libdems veteoed it.
You can always tell an employee to clear their desk and leave - provided you compensate them accordingly.
The problem lies with employers who think they can fire people at will and pay them nothing.
By and large, easy dismissal/high employment is a model that works better than making it very hard to dismiss, combined with low employment.
Er no you cant. However if you stuff their mouth with enough gold they may not take you to a tribunal for wongful dismissal.
For most employees, the stress of an Empoyment Tribunal, plus the big deposit, is a major deterrent. It's not expensive to fire someone on an average salary. The big payouts are very rare, and only go the big fish.
That is why if you have any sense you join a trade union. Secretly if neccesary.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
While that's true, the Holyrood elections this year demonstrated that isn't the be all, and end all. The LibDems recaptured two of the FPTP seats they lose to the SNP in 2012: Edinburgh West, and NE Fife. The MSPs did not benefit sufficiently from the first term incumbent bonus to hold off a mild recovery from the LDs. (Edinburgh West, which is big enough to potentially survive the boundary changes intact, has to be by far their best shot for a gain in the country, given the sitting SNP MP is mired in scandal.)
Interesting analysis and seems about right to me, David.
In this context I think the Tories should fear a Lib Dem revival below the Severn/Wash line. If Brexit takes the wrong direction, there are lots of opportunities for recapturing territory - the Sturgeon gambit won't wash again if the Tories look like they're leading us into Hard Brexit chaos.
I think the Lib Dems could come back rapidly in SW London and Colchester. I don't see any prospects for
The big issue though is Corbyn. While he's in place, middle of the road voters will stick with the Conservatives, in marginal seats.
I
I can't see the Lib Dems coming back in Colchester. Sir Bob had a huge personal vote and won't be standing again at his age. Some of his voters will go Labour (indeed, they probably already did, hence his defeat) but I reckon the non-Tory vote will be split.
That sounds reasonable to me.
My rough assumption is that the LibDems will stage a recovery in Scotland in line with their Holyrood successes this year (+2 seats), will pick up a couple of very pro-Remain, anti-Heathrow seats in South West London, and grab one of their former seats (probably somewhere like Bath or Eastleigh where they still dominate the council).
I would think a slightly better upside than that, but would top end it as about 15 seats on the new boundaries.
A bit early to predict Lib Dem seats due to how the boundaries may work out and the anti-Corbyn effects, but FWIW my range is 1-20 on the new boundaries. My GE2015 forecast was under 25 for the Lib Dems so I was far too optimistic for them a year ago. Although way below most of the forecasts from Lib Dems on PB!
LD seats in North Norfolk and Carshalton&Wallington are probably reliant on the popularity of the incumbent MP. If Norman Lamb and/or Tom Brake decided to retire the Tories would probably take both of them fairly easily.
I think so too, but I am bearish on the very idea of personal mandates. Lots of LD MPs thought that their personal votes would save them, but they were wrong. I think that the effect is pretty slight and UNS generally the best indicator.
I suspect both will carry on though for 2020 at least.
Incumbent Lib Dem MP's far outperformed their party generally, in 2015. The problem was that the Lib Dem vote fell so sharply that their personal vote couldn't save them.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
Leaving the protectionist EU is not ironic.
Except that's a myth brought about by dishonest leaver rhetoric.
It's a myth that the EU is protectionist? So we have free trade with India and Australia and America and Africa do we?
Name a non-EU country that has free trade with India, Australia, America and Africa.
"Theresa May has been accused of “control freakery” after banishing the sofa government and “chillaxing” of David Cameron’s regime as she tightens her grip across Whitehall."
Maybe I'm missing something, but if Theresa May wants to get rid of chillaxing and sofa government, I don't see what the problem is. Many people will probably be glad to see the back of them.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
While that's true, the Holyrood elections this year demonstrated that isn't the be all, and end all. The LibDems recaptured two of the FPTP seats they lose to the SNP in 2012: Edinburgh West, and NE Fife. The MSPs did not benefit sufficiently from the first term incumbent bonus to hold off a mild recovery from the LDs. (Edinburgh West, which is big enough to potentially survive the boundary changes intact, has to be by far their best shot for a gain in the country, given the sitting SNP MP is mired in scandal.)
Do you mean seats they lost in 2011? There wasn't a Holyrood election in 2012.
The regained 2 in 2016 absolutely, but they had lost 9 of their 11 FPTP seats in 2011. So a modest couple of games but they are still dramatically down. Even if there is an unwind in personal vote and a first time incumbency vote this time, any modest recovery will still see gains as being easiest in seats they used to hold and still have some residual strength.
48% or more agree with Soubry. Who'd have thought it?
Fox is still out there Unicorn watching as far as I can see. Idiot.
What has Fox said?
Fox is delusional because he doesn't understand how the WTO works, especially the prospect of dealing with Most Favoured Nation status. It means that his liberalisation of markets issue will become one sided in dealing with the EU, because we cannot set a retaliatory tariff against a trade block, even if they set a high barrier to us (i.e 10% on cars) without that being our barrier to the whole world.
Wouldn't our Most Favoured Nation tariffs be the same as the EU ones, at least at first? That would suggest the same retaliatory barriers on both sides if no deal was struck.
The barriers to other countries would depend on what deal we agreed with them, if I understand things rightly.
When people talk about "WTO rules", they don't mean "at tariff levels set by the WTO".
WTO rules basically say that - for all countries that you do not have an MFN/FTA agreement with - you must have identical tariffs. That is, you cannot discriminate against a country or block of countries. WTO rules also define the product categories, so they are consistent between countries, on which tariffs are imposed.
The result of this is that we know what the tariff rates the UK would have with the EU in the event of a WTO Brexit. (The good news is that - by and large - the EU has pretty low tariffs, below the levels of the US, Japan, Brazil, Russia and China; although above those of Canada.)
We would have to set our own tariff structure in time, but under WTO rules we could not discriminate against the EU, nor them against us.
48% or more agree with Soubry. Who'd have thought it?
Fox is still out there Unicorn watching as far as I can see. Idiot.
What has Fox said?
Fox is delusional because he doesn't understand how the WTO works, especially the prospect of dealing with Most Favoured Nation status. It means that his liberalisation of markets issue will become one sided in dealing with the EU, because we cannot set a retaliatory tariff against a trade block, even if they set a high barrier to us (i.e 10% on cars) without that being our barrier to the whole world.
Wouldn't our Most Favoured Nation tariffs be the same as the EU ones, at least at first? That would suggest the same retaliatory barriers on both sides if no deal was struck.
The barriers to other countries would depend on what deal we agreed with them, if I understand things rightly.
When people talk about "WTO rules", they don't mean "at tariff levels set by the WTO".
WTO rules basically say that - for all countries that you do not have an MFN/FTA agreement with - you must have identical tariffs. That is, you cannot discriminate against a country or block of countries. WTO rules also define the product categories, so they are consistent between countries, on which tariffs are imposed.
The result of this is that we know what the tariff rates the UK would have with the EU in the event of a WTO Brexit. (The good news is that - by and large - the EU has pretty low tariffs, below the levels of the US, Japan, Brazil, Russia and China; although above those of Canada.)
We would have to set our own tariff structure in time, but under WTO rules we could not discriminate against the EU, nor them against us.
But since WTO rules don't put a cap on the number of FTA you can sign then if we seek to and achieve a series of FTA agreements via Fox's new department (big if) ... anyone that doesn't agree a FTA with us can be retaliated against via residual tariffs.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
While that's true, the Holyrood elections this year demonstrated that isn't the be all, and end all. The LibDems recaptured two of the FPTP seats they lose to the SNP in 2012: Edinburgh West, and NE Fife. The MSPs did not benefit sufficiently from the first term incumbent bonus to hold off a mild recovery from the LDs. (Edinburgh West, which is big enough to potentially survive the boundary changes intact, has to be by far their best shot for a gain in the country, given the sitting SNP MP is mired in scandal.)
Do you mean seats they lost in 2011? There wasn't a Holyrood election in 2012.
The regained 2 in 2016 absolutely, but they had lost 9 of their 11 FPTP seats in 2011. So a modest couple of games but they are still dramatically down. Even if there is an unwind in personal vote and a first time incumbency vote this time, any modest recovery will still see gains as being easiest in seats they used to hold and still have some residual strength.
I do mean 2011. I don't think the LDs will gain back a fifth of the seats they lost nationwide in 2020, but I do think a tenth (i.e. about five) is entirely possible.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
Leaving the protectionist EU is not ironic.
Except that's a myth brought about by dishonest leaver rhetoric.
It's a myth that the EU is protectionist? So we have free trade with India and Australia and America and Africa do we?
Name a non-EU country that has free trade with India, Australia, America and Africa.
Economic arguments are mostly ways of rationalising political beliefs.
If I understand your posts correctly, you see yourself as a European citizen and want to be part of a State called Europe. Most of the rest of us don't.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
Getting Ex MPs to stand again, will have some positive effect, but I suspect many will not want to, age, new job etc, and even where they do the new boundaries will limit, (but not eliminate) the effect.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
In 2015 Labour sought to get a number of ex-MP's re-elected hoping to maintain their old personal vote, c.f. Nick Palmer xMP. I believe the analysis was that it didn't work and the personal vote unwound even though it was the same people who used to hold the personal vote.
48% or more agree with Soubry. Who'd have thought it?
Fox is still out there Unicorn watching as far as I can see. Idiot.
What has Fox said?
Fox is delusional because he doesn't understand how the WTO works, especially the prospect of dealing with Most Favoured Nation status. It means that his liberalisation of markets issue will become one sided in dealing with the EU, because we cannot set a retaliatory tariff against a trade block, even if they set a high barrier to us (i.e 10% on cars) without that being our barrier to the whole world.
For a country the size of the UK retaliatory tariffs mean higher prices and less choice. They don't save jobs or incentivise investment.
Nissan sells 55% of the cars it makes in the UK in the 27 other member states. It sells something like 25% in the UK. There is absolutely no doubt which market is more important. The same applies to all auto makers. The UK is big, the single market is bigger. If you're a manufacturer based in one of the 27 - Germany, say - you'll not like tariffs being imposed on your imports into the UK, but you will like the tariffs imposed on the UK rxports to the 27. The UK is not big enough to worry about too much. You may lose some sales with tariffs, but if your brand is strong (see BMW) in practice it won't be cataclysmic.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
Leaving the protectionist EU is not ironic.
Except that's a myth brought about by dishonest leaver rhetoric.
It's a myth that the EU is protectionist? So we have free trade with India and Australia and America and Africa do we?
Name a non-EU country that has free trade with India, Australia, America and Africa.
Economic arguments are mostly ways of rationalising political beliefs.
True, but the rationalisation should be consistent with the facts, otherwise it can lead to expensive mistakes.
Going from 'I don't like the EU' to 'we'd be better off out because the EU is protectionist' doesn't stack up.
... We would have to set our own tariff structure in time, but under WTO rules we could not discriminate against the EU, nor them against us.
Is there any reason why we should want to discriminate against the EU countries or they against us? There are none that I can think of (though I'd like to think we might put some NTBs in place in relation to animal welfare).
But since WTO rules don't put a cap on the number of FTA you can sign then if we seek to and achieve a series of FTA agreements via Fox's new department (big if) ... anyone that doesn't agree a FTA with us can be retaliated against via residual tariffs.
I think our side is wildly overoptimistic in how free trade the rest of the world is. The US is not going to ratify TPP, which involves Japan, Australia, South Korea and other major American allies. Why should they enter a deal with us and not with them? Further, it's not clear to me why the US would suddenly drop all the objectionable things from TPP just for us (i.e., the requirement to keep intellectual property laws in lock-step with the US, ISDS tribunals.)
China, as the deal with Switzerland demonstrates, is not particularly free trade. I doubt we'd get a better deal. Japan and India are far from paragons of free trade. (And I think the same can probably be said of Brazil and Russia.)
Now, there are countries, like Canada and Australia, where we could get deals relatively quickly. (In the case of Canada, we could simply dust of the EFTA-Canada free trade agreement.) But they are the exception, not the rule.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
Leaving the protectionist EU is not ironic.
Except that's a myth brought about by dishonest leaver rhetoric.
It's a myth that the EU is protectionist? So we have free trade with India and Australia and America and Africa do we?
Name a non-EU country that has free trade with India, Australia, America and Africa.
The UK by 2023.
Africa?
We could get deals the day after Brexit. It's getting the right deal that matters.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
Leaving the protectionist EU is not ironic.
Except that's a myth brought about by dishonest leaver rhetoric.
It's a myth that the EU is protectionist? So we have free trade with India and Australia and America and Africa do we?
Name a non-EU country that has free trade with India, Australia, America and Africa.
The UK by 2023.
While I wish that were true, I refer you to my earlier post*.
* Chunks of Africa should be possible, although there is no shortage of African governments that still believe in protectionism. Australia should be fine. America, you are too optimistic.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
This isn't true. A lot of the direst predictions were based merely on our voting LEAVE. It was claimed - not least by the Treasury - that the mere act of voting OUT would be so destabilising the FTSE would crash, interest rates soar, property prices drop 15-20% etc
If I may, I think greater effect would have been achieved by capitalising the "voting" elements of your post. I wouldn't normally venture thoughts to the master, but I do know you like your capitals.
Hence: "..direst predictions were based merely on our VOTING leave..." etc.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
Although most of the anecdotes and panic came from SeanT!
SeanT does always tend to the extreme:
That's it. That's the choice, if we are going to LEAVE it's EEA. Once you grasp this it gets a lot easier.
The only alternatives are rerunning the referendum, or ignoring the result. "
I wonder how his money losing, business wobbling friends are doing now ?
I am though rather curious as to how MaxPB's share options turned out in the end:
" Well it's pretty glum in the office since a lot of us get paid our bonuses in options, the company share price isn't looking too hot at the moment. I don't think it's anything more than a temporary blip if we stay in the single market, without it we are looking at the break up of the Union and between 3 and 7 years of hard work to get us back on an even keel. "
lol! I did indeed have a major Hillary-esque coughing-fit of the collywobbles post referendum, though, as far as I can recall, I never resiled from my vote, or regretted it. I certainly don't regret it now
And I still believe a very very soft Brexit into the EEA is the answer, then we can slowly pivot further away from Europe as the years pass.
Of course, that's by far the most sensible option. It gives everyone (including the EU) time to adjust.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
But since WTO rules don't put a cap on the number of FTA you can sign then if we seek to and achieve a series of FTA agreements via Fox's new department (big if) ... anyone that doesn't agree a FTA with us can be retaliated against via residual tariffs.
Now, there are countries, like Canada and Australia, where we could get deals relatively quickly. (In the case of Canada, we could simply dust of the EFTA-Canada free trade agreement.) But they are the exception, not the rule.
I am not sure our economy is in great need of free trade arrangements with primary product exporting countries.
What tariff barriers are damaging our exports to these places at present? And how will imports of Canadian wheat, Australian dairy and NZ meat affect our agriculture? I would suspect the same effect as the late 19th Century boom time on the Praries and Outback and the British agricultural depression.
Name a non-EU country that has free trade with India, Australia, America and Africa.
The UK by 2023.
While I wish that were true, I refer you to my earlier post*.
* Chunks of Africa should be possible, although there is no shortage of African governments that still believe in protectionism. Australia should be fine. America, you are too optimistic.
The optimism is also based on the delusion that Britain is keener on free trade than the EU.
This is Karel De Gucht's record as trade commissioner:
During his five-year term as the Commissioner for Trade, De Gucht achieved important trade agreements, among others, with South Korea (2011), Colombia and Peru (2013), Central America, Singapore, Georgia, Moldavia and Ukraine (2014). The comprehensive trade agreement with Ukraine was a direct cause of the upheavals in Independence Square and the 2013–14 Ukrainian Crisis. In October 2014 he concluded CETA, the free trade agreement with Canada and the first ever agreement with a G7 member. He also concluded landmark economic partnership agreements with West Africa (ECOWAS), South Africa (SADC) and Eastern Africa (EAC), covering together 75% of African economy. The signature of the trade agreement with the EAC, consisting of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, was his ultimate duty, done in Nairobi on 31. October 2014, his last day in office as the European Commissioner of Trade.
He left office while several trade negotiations were still ongoing. He oversaw the start of trade negotiations with Japan and Vietnam, resumed talks with Mercosur and began investment agreement negotiations with China. He also prepared and launched free trade negotiations with the United States, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), in 2013.
I only caught a bit of the Tezza profile today on R4 will have to go back and listen to the whole bit. In particular, I thought the answer to "did she really ever at any time want to reduce (EU) immigration while HS" was pretty woolly.
That is what has people not intimitely involved with the relevant EU treaties scratching their heads. Was she simply not able to (the accepted position), or did she not take whichever measures were available?
Questions to be asked to all Cons (incl her, incl Dave) on both counts. Would be nice to get the actual scoop.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
Leaving the protectionist EU is not ironic.
Except that's a myth brought about by dishonest leaver rhetoric.
It's a myth that the EU is protectionist? So we have free trade with India and Australia and America and Africa do we?
Name a non-EU country that has free trade with India, Australia, America and Africa.
The UK by 2023.
While I wish that were true, I refer you to my earlier post*.
* Chunks of Africa should be possible, although there is no shortage of African governments that still believe in protectionism. Australia should be fine. America, you are too optimistic.
The winds of change have brought Brexit and many global opportunities. You're too pessimistic.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
In 2015 Labour sought to get a number of ex-MP's re-elected hoping to maintain their old personal vote, c.f. Nick Palmer xMP. I believe the analysis was that it didn't work and the personal vote unwound even though it was the same people who used to hold the personal vote.
The Lib Dems need to keep their prominent Orange Bookers like David Laws and Vince Cable if they are to avoid being converted into Labour Lite by by Bairite defectors.
But since WTO rules don't put a cap on the number of FTA you can sign then if we seek to and achieve a series of FTA agreements via Fox's new department (big if) ... anyone that doesn't agree a FTA with us can be retaliated against via residual tariffs.
Now, there are countries, like Canada and Australia, where we could get deals relatively quickly. (In the case of Canada, we could simply dust of the EFTA-Canada free trade agreement.) But they are the exception, not the rule.
I am not sure our economy is in great need of free trade arrangements with primary product exporting countries.
...
I am not sure that our country is in great need of free trade agreements at all. The most successful countries have always been those with a mercantilist bent, including our own in its heyday.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
Although most of the anecdotes and panic came from SeanT!
SeanT dord work to get us back on an even keel. "
lol! rope as the years pass.
Of course, that's by far the most sensible option. It gives everyone (including the EU) time to adjust.
But, sadly, it seems unlikely that will happen.
I'm more optimistic. Soft Brexit is what businesses on both sides really want, and many other institutions, like universities, the arts. It's the best for Ireland and Ulster. And so forth.
I think all the loud talk of Hard Brexit is sensible negotiating tactics from T May: she has to let the Europeans think and believe that she will walk away with nothing, if needs be (and she has to prepare for that). But in the end a classic EU fudge will be prepared, and it will be a softer Brexit than you fear. Freedom of Movement will be turned into free movement with-a-job-offer.
We will still have to pay the EU but the British will call these subventions something else, to save face, while the Europeans will crow that we're still paying (so both sides can claim victory).
There is a chance it will all fall apart and it ends up a very hard Brexit, but then there's a chance the EU will implode, too.
Soft Brexit is certainly in the UK's best interests, but it will tear the Tories apart. That's the problem May has.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
In 2015 Labour sought to get a number of ex-MP's re-elected hoping to maintain their old personal vote, c.f. Nick Palmer xMP. I believe the analysis was that it didn't work and the personal vote unwound even though it was the same people who used to hold the personal vote.
The Lib Dems need to keep their prominent Orange Bookers like David Laws and Vince Cable if they are to avoid being converted into Labour Lite by by Bairite defectors.
Vince said before the last electiopn that 2015 was going to be his last, and Bob R has since said much the same. He is 70 this year, so would be 75 at the next election, assuming etc. Yeovil LD’s appear to have a new candidate, Daisy Benson.
He is correct if Passionately advocating free trade, Free trade creates wealth, because trade creates wealth and the more trade the more wealth, this will be shared between all contrary's that participate in the trade, and will have the biggest benefits to the poorest people in each country that trade freely. he is also correct to not focus on the EU the rest of the would has 93% of the population (and rising) and 85% of global GDP (and rising) and while distance is an issue, the EU will remain physically close the to UK, this effects is being reduced by technology, bigger ships, longer range aeroplanes and faster internet speeds.
however he does seem to place to much emphasis on FTAs. almost all of the benefits to trade to the UK can be achieved by unilaterally dropping all taxes and regulatory barriers, on all goods and services, from any country, basically repeating the repeal of the corn lows act of 1850. FTAs can produce additional benefits, but they should not be over stated. If the only way to get them is by imposing tariffs on no FTA country's then they are not normally worth it!
Singapore is the best example of this tariff free trade with the would, and FTAs (including TPP) with anybody who wants one. I do recognise that there will be some economic dislocation on implementing this and a small number of people who benefit from the currant arrangements will be heart economically. but think the readjustment will be swift and on net the benefits will start to out way the costs with in a couple of years and then keep rising!
There are some things that can be done to help the transition, e.g. make it easier and quicker to start a new company, and speed up and make easier planning lowers to make it easer to open new premises or change the use of existing ones. but these are things we should do any way.
I will continues to make this case, is the best, politest and articulated manner I can because I passionately believe it, but out of curiosity is any body else with me?
48% or more agree with Soubry. Who'd have thought it?
Fox is still out there Unicorn watching as far as I can see. Idiot.
What has Fox said?
Fox is delusional... world.
Wouldn't our Most Favoured Nation tariffs be the same as the EU ones, at least at first? That would suggest the same retaliatory barriers on both sides if no deal was struck.
The barriers to other countries would depend on what deal we agreed with them, if I understand things rightly.
When people talk about "WTO rules", they don't mean "at tariff levels set by the WTO".
WTO rules basically say that - for all countries that you do not have an MFN/FTA agreement with - you must have identical tariffs. That is, you cannot discriminate against a country or block of countries. WTO rules also define the product categories, so they are consistent between countries, on which tariffs are imposed.
The result of this is that we know what the tariff rates the UK would have with the EU in the event of a WTO Brexit. (The good news is that - by and large - the EU has pretty low tariffs, below the levels of the US, Japan, Brazil, Russia and China; although above those of Canada.)
We would have to set our own tariff structure in time, but under WTO rules we could not discriminate against the EU, nor them against us.
But since WTO rules don't put a cap on the number of FTA you can sign then if we seek to and achieve a series of FTA agreements via Fox's new department (big if) ... anyone that doesn't agree a FTA with us can be retaliated against via residual tariffs.
It does define what qualifies as a free trade agreement though - and it has to comprehensively open up the economies of the nations involved to a defined level. That's where the difficulties can arise, in that not all countries are ready to be that liberal on trade due to social issues and sector specific requirements at home.
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
Those predictions were coming the week AFTER the vote when A50 was clearly not going to be activated for several months at the earliest.
Yet that didn't stop widespread claims that economic chaos was already starting with some spurious anecdotes supposedly backing that up.
Although most of the anecdotes and panic came from SeanT!
SeanT dord work to get us back on an even keel. "
lol! rope as the years pass.
Of course, that's by far the most sensible option. It gives everyone (including the EU) time to adjust.
But, sadly, it seems unlikely that will happen.
I'm mo
Soft Brexit is certainly in the UK's best interests, but it will tear the Tories apart. That's the problem May has.
Yes, the next big war is within the Tory party. But I reckon the Soft Brexiteers will prevail: they constitute a majority of the party in the Commons and, I think, a majority of Tory members and voters, who don't want to see too much economic volatility, & want to see London prosper.
The voters who want Hard Brexit and Absolutely No Free Movement are kippers and Labourites.
At least five members of the cabinet are hard Brexiteers (or four, as Boris will chop and change depending on what he sees as being best for him).
I'm more optimistic. Soft Brexit is what businesses on both sides really want, and many other institutions, like universities, the arts. It's the best for Ireland and Ulster. And so forth.
I think all the loud talk of Hard Brexit is sensible negotiating tactics from T May: she has to let the Europeans think and believe that she will walk away with nothing, if needs be (and she has to prepare for that). But in the end a classic EU fudge will be prepared, and it will be a softer Brexit than you fear. Freedom of Movement will be turned into free movement with-a-job-offer.
We will still have to pay the EU but the British will call these subventions something else, to save face, while the Europeans will crow that we're still paying (so both sides can claim victory).
There is a chance it will all fall apart and it ends up a very hard Brexit, but then there's a chance the EU will implode, too.
Soft Brexit is certainly in the UK's best interests, but it will tear the Tories apart. That's the problem May has.
I agree with SeanT's prediction, though the devil is in the details. And Southam too, up to a point - I think that the top of the party will fall into line (you can just see Boris adjusting again as necessary, with clouds of guff and Latin aphorisms to cover it), but I'm picking up quite a few Tory ex-constituents who are saying they're already disillusioned with May over immigration and Europe but don't like Labour either, so will probably not vote at the next opportunity. You'd think they'd be going UKIP, but UKIP is off most people's radar at present.
But since WTO rules don't put a cap on the number of FTA you can sign then if we seek to and achieve a series of FTA agreements via Fox's new department (big if) ... anyone that doesn't agree a FTA with us can be retaliated against via residual tariffs.
Now, there are countries, like Canada and Australia, where we could get deals relatively quickly. (In the case of Canada, we could simply dust of the EFTA-Canada free trade agreement.) But they are the exception, not the rule.
I am not sure our economy is in great need of free trade arrangements with primary product exporting countries.
...
I am not sure that our country is in great need of free trade agreements at all. The most successful countries have always been those with a mercantilist bent, including our own in its heyday.
International tariffs on manufactured goods are pretty low via the WTO, and contining to reduce, so not a big deal.
On agriculture, we may want to put up barriers to factory farmed danish bacon and hormone injected US beef. On services we may want fewer barriers, but even there we may not want an obligation to tender government contracts to overseas interests such as US health corporations.
Free Trade agreements are a loss of control, rather than taking it back.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
In 2015 Labour sought to get a number of ex-MP's re-elected hoping to maintain their old personal vote, c.f. Nick Palmer xMP. I believe the analysis was that it didn't work and the personal vote unwound even though it was the same people who used to hold the personal vote.
The Lib Dems need to keep their prominent Orange Bookers like David Laws and Vince Cable if they are to avoid being converted into Labour Lite by by Bairite defectors.
Vince said before the last electiopn that 2015 was going to be his last, and Bob R has since said much the same. He is 70 this year, so would be 75 at the next election, assuming etc. Yeovil LD’s appear to have a new candidate, Daisy Benson.
This binary view of 'Hard and Soft' Brexit is an oversimplification. There are a great many options which range between a simple 'Walk away with nothing' to EEA membership to Customs union membership to a full FTA, or a manufacturing FTA or customs agreements plus mutual recognition.
There are a huge number of methods - I backed for the sake of campaigning, the EEA/EFTA route, because if we were forced to accept afterwards what we campaigned for this would be the least damaging and the easiest to achieve inside the 2 years.
As it turns out, there is no serious doubt on both sides that even that (the softest Brexit) can be achieved in 2 years either, because it will take longer than that to repatriate the customs regulatiory framework and get the authorised economic operator status verified.
Art 50 was a crock, designed to stop the normal international law routes of exit from the EU by having a local rule. But it's there and we have to use it, because we agreed to it. And there's the hardest bit - we need to agree on the basis of triggering the article, with our EU colleagues, to extend the time frame to 4-5 years, before the letter is submitted.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
In 2015 Labour sought to get a number of ex-MP's re-elected hoping to maintain their old personal vote, c.f. Nick Palmer xMP. I believe the analysis was that it didn't work and the personal vote unwound even though it was the same people who used to hold the personal vote.
The Lib Dems need to keep their prominent Orange Bookers like David Laws and Vince Cable if they are to avoid being converted into Labour Lite by by Bairite defectors.
In 2015 Labour sought to get a number of ex-MP's re-elected hoping to maintain their old personal vote, c.f. Nick Palmer xMP. I believe the analysis was that it didn't work and the personal vote unwound even though it was the same people who used to hold the personal vote.
Yes, that's largely right. What I found was that (1) 26% of the electorate were new, so pre-2010 incumbency meant nothing to them (2) first-term incumbency bonus was real, even for controversial MPs like Anna (3) Residual affection translated more into vague goodwill than actual votes - "It's nice to see you again but I think I'll revert to my old Tory loyalties this time" was a sentence I heard more than once in the final week.
Because the swing in 2010 had been so low, the overall impact over 2005-2015 is hard to assess, but although there is probably still a modest benefit from name recognition, I wouldn't think it as useful as we might have hoped.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
In 2015 Labour sought to get a number of ex-MP's re-elected hoping to maintain their old personal vote, c.f. Nick Palmer xMP. I believe the analysis was that it didn't work and the personal vote unwound even though it was the same people who used to hold the personal vote.
The Lib Dems need to keep their prominent Orange Bookers like David Laws and Vince Cable if they are to avoid being converted into Labour Lite by by Bairite defectors.
Vince said before the last electiopn that 2015 was going to be his last, and Bob R has since said much the same. He is 70 this year, so would be 75 at the next election, assuming etc. Yeovil LD’s appear to have a new candidate, Daisy Benson.
Vince Cable is the current emergency PPC for Twickenham to cover the poosibility of an election within the next 12 months.
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying thissnipConservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
In 2015 Labour sought to get a number of ex-MP's re-elected hoping to maintain their old personal vote, c.f. Nick Palmer xMP. I believe the analysis was that it didn't work and the personal vote unwound even though it was the same people who used to hold the personal vote.
The Lib Dems need to keep their prominent Orange Bookers like David Laws and Vince Cable if they are to avoid being converted into Labour Lite by by Bairite defectors.
Vince said before the last electiopn that 2015 was going to be his last, and Bob R has since said much the same. He is 70 this year, so would be 75 at the next election, assuming etc. Yeovil LD’s appear to have a new candidate, Daisy Benson.
How old are Clinton and Trump or May and Corbyn?
75 is the new 60.
I am delighted that by Nov 9 POTUS and PMOTUK will both be a lot older than me when for the recent past they have both been younger.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI
"I wonder who is the biggest misogynist on this site."
I'd vote, although they're not on this site, for man who said this ...
"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."
Oops! Sorry, I've got that wrong. It was Professor Camille Paglia, the lesbian feminist.
I think women are great, but I wouldn't let one park my car. Do I come second?
As for SW London, maybe, but I foresee more of a Comeback.
A: That we are leaving the EU. It upsets remaining europhiles to be reminded of that.
The barriers to other countries would depend on what deal we agreed with them, if I understand things rightly.
He argues that globalisation and free trade need to be protected from 'protectionist retrenchment with damaging economic consequences that future generations will have to endure'.
It's not only Americans that don't get irony.
There are many PBers who have made good money from Andy's electoral analyses.
(Test)
Amber Rudd's award-winning poem:
"Loving You Is So Exciting
Darling, let us spend the night,
Sashay past St Mary’s Castle,
Home to bed, dim the light,
I’ll move your world throughout the night,
Oh, honeyed words are most enticing,
Loving you is so exciting.
But why dear heart, did you not mention,
What we’ll do for contraception?
‘Don’t you worry, we’ll be fine,
‘Take a risk, just this time,
‘Tonight’s for pleasure, take a chance,
‘Think of now, and our romance.’
Oh, darling you are less appealing.
What you say is so revealing,
If risk is in your mood and speech,
How about bingo on the beach?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/revealed-amber-rudds-safe-sex-poetry-prize-that-found-a-rhyme-fo/
"I think a great many feminists would not consider Paglia one of their number."
I'm not surprised. I suspect Germaine Greer also remains in the doghouse.
Here's an interesting quote from Wiki ... "Paglia wrote that she "nearly came to blows with the founding members of the women's studies program at the State University of New York at Albany, when they categorically denied that hormones influence human experience or behavior"
Better to be in the doghouse than to deny reality.
SeanT makes a headless chicken seem consistent.
A great last couplet.
I suspect both will carry on though for 2020 at least.
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 %
In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9%
In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
this is speculation Bu I would think that in the seats where LD where second the vote held up slightly better because of Tactical Voting, and in the places with a LD MP it was a combination of tactical voting and Personal vote.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying this will defiantly happen, there is always events! the effects of leadership! and so on, that is hard to predict. But all things being equal, I think there are one million votes up for grabs! And I think the Conservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
(I would note that your analysis is pretty much describing the difference between UNS and Proportional Swing.)
If they make sweeping gains at the locals in 2018, retaking Kingston council for example, that will be a sign that the LDs are likely to grab a seat or two back in SW London in 2020.
Nature abhors a vacuum though. The collapsed protest Lib Dem vote which went to UKIP last time will "return home" back to the Lib Dems if UKIP doesn't revive.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if Theresa May wants to get rid of chillaxing and sofa government, I don't see what the problem is. Many people will probably be glad to see the back of them.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-takes-tighter-grip-on-no-10-5bp88fxxx
The regained 2 in 2016 absolutely, but they had lost 9 of their 11 FPTP seats in 2011. So a modest couple of games but they are still dramatically down. Even if there is an unwind in personal vote and a first time incumbency vote this time, any modest recovery will still see gains as being easiest in seats they used to hold and still have some residual strength.
WTO rules basically say that - for all countries that you do not have an MFN/FTA agreement with - you must have identical tariffs. That is, you cannot discriminate against a country or block of countries. WTO rules also define the product categories, so they are consistent between countries, on which tariffs are imposed.
The result of this is that we know what the tariff rates the UK would have with the EU in the event of a WTO Brexit. (The good news is that - by and large - the EU has pretty low tariffs, below the levels of the US, Japan, Brazil, Russia and China; although above those of Canada.)
We would have to set our own tariff structure in time, but under WTO rules we could not discriminate against the EU, nor them against us.
http://dailym.ai/2dBENMN
A lot depends on how you measure the change
Seat A LD defence on 40% of the vote lost on a 25% vote share
Seat B LD second place on 25% going to 10% .
In both seats the LD voteshare drops by 15% reflecting UNS, but in seat A the LDs retain 62.5 % of their vote, but only 40% in seat B.
Just saying.
If I understand your posts correctly, you see yourself as a European citizen and want to be part of a State called Europe. Most of the rest of us don't.
Nissan sells 55% of the cars it makes in the UK in the 27 other member states. It sells something like 25% in the UK. There is absolutely no doubt which market is more important. The same applies to all auto makers. The UK is big, the single market is bigger. If you're a manufacturer based in one of the 27 - Germany, say - you'll not like tariffs being imposed on your imports into the UK, but you will like the tariffs imposed on the UK rxports to the 27. The UK is not big enough to worry about too much. You may lose some sales with tariffs, but if your brand is strong (see BMW) in practice it won't be cataclysmic.
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/usa/article/detail/T0260063EN_US/bmw-group-global-sales-continue-to-grow?language=en_US
Going from 'I don't like the EU' to 'we'd be better off out because the EU is protectionist' doesn't stack up.
China, as the deal with Switzerland demonstrates, is not particularly free trade. I doubt we'd get a better deal. Japan and India are far from paragons of free trade. (And I think the same can probably be said of Brazil and Russia.)
Now, there are countries, like Canada and Australia, where we could get deals relatively quickly. (In the case of Canada, we could simply dust of the EFTA-Canada free trade agreement.) But they are the exception, not the rule.
We could get deals the day after Brexit. It's getting the right deal that matters.
* Chunks of Africa should be possible, although there is no shortage of African governments that still believe in protectionism. Australia should be fine. America, you are too optimistic.
Hence: "..direst predictions were based merely on our VOTING leave..." etc.
I remain, as ever..
But, sadly, it seems unlikely that will happen.
What tariff barriers are damaging our exports to these places at present? And how will imports of Canadian wheat, Australian dairy and NZ meat affect our agriculture? I would suspect the same effect as the late 19th Century boom time on the Praries and Outback and the British agricultural depression.
This is Karel De Gucht's record as trade commissioner:
During his five-year term as the Commissioner for Trade, De Gucht achieved important trade agreements, among others, with South Korea (2011), Colombia and Peru (2013), Central America, Singapore, Georgia, Moldavia and Ukraine (2014). The comprehensive trade agreement with Ukraine was a direct cause of the upheavals in Independence Square and the 2013–14 Ukrainian Crisis. In October 2014 he concluded CETA, the free trade agreement with Canada and the first ever agreement with a G7 member. He also concluded landmark economic partnership agreements with West Africa (ECOWAS), South Africa (SADC) and Eastern Africa (EAC), covering together 75% of African economy. The signature of the trade agreement with the EAC, consisting of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, was his ultimate duty, done in Nairobi on 31. October 2014, his last day in office as the European Commissioner of Trade.
He left office while several trade negotiations were still ongoing. He oversaw the start of trade negotiations with Japan and Vietnam, resumed talks with Mercosur and began investment agreement negotiations with China. He also prepared and launched free trade negotiations with the United States, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), in 2013.
That is what has people not intimitely involved with the relevant EU treaties scratching their heads. Was she simply not able to (the accepted position), or did she not take whichever measures were available?
Questions to be asked to all Cons (incl her, incl Dave) on both counts. Would be nice to get the actual scoop.
F1: I'll be checking the weather forecast before contemplating bets.
http://businesstech.co.za/news/general/138707/junk-status-for-south-africa-is-very-likely-economist/
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/dispatches-october-2016-rw-johnson-south-africa-jacob-zuma-anc-election
Yeovil LD’s appear to have a new candidate, Daisy Benson.
he gets some things right and some less so:
He is correct if Passionately advocating free trade, Free trade creates wealth, because trade creates wealth and the more trade the more wealth, this will be shared between all contrary's that participate in the trade, and will have the biggest benefits to the poorest people in each country that trade freely. he is also correct to not focus on the EU the rest of the would has 93% of the population (and rising) and 85% of global GDP (and rising) and while distance is an issue, the EU will remain physically close the to UK, this effects is being reduced by technology, bigger ships, longer range aeroplanes and faster internet speeds.
however he does seem to place to much emphasis on FTAs. almost all of the benefits to trade to the UK can be achieved by unilaterally dropping all taxes and regulatory barriers, on all goods and services, from any country, basically repeating the repeal of the corn lows act of 1850. FTAs can produce additional benefits, but they should not be over stated. If the only way to get them is by imposing tariffs on no FTA country's then they are not normally worth it!
Singapore is the best example of this tariff free trade with the would, and FTAs (including TPP) with anybody who wants one. I do recognise that there will be some economic dislocation on implementing this and a small number of people who benefit from the currant arrangements will be heart economically. but think the readjustment will be swift and on net the benefits will start to out way the costs with in a couple of years and then keep rising!
There are some things that can be done to help the transition, e.g. make it easier and quicker to start a new company, and speed up and make easier planning lowers to make it easer to open new premises or change the use of existing ones. but these are things we should do any way.
I will continues to make this case, is the best, politest and articulated manner I can because I passionately believe it, but out of curiosity is any body else with me?
On agriculture, we may want to put up barriers to factory farmed danish bacon and hormone injected US beef. On services we may want fewer barriers, but even there we may not want an obligation to tender government contracts to overseas interests such as US health corporations.
Free Trade agreements are a loss of control, rather than taking it back.
75 is the new 60.
This binary view of 'Hard and Soft' Brexit is an oversimplification. There are a great many options which range between a simple 'Walk away with nothing' to EEA membership to Customs union membership to a full FTA, or a manufacturing FTA or customs agreements plus mutual recognition.
There are a huge number of methods - I backed for the sake of campaigning, the EEA/EFTA route, because if we were forced to accept afterwards what we campaigned for this would be the least damaging and the easiest to achieve inside the 2 years.
As it turns out, there is no serious doubt on both sides that even that (the softest Brexit) can be achieved in 2 years either, because it will take longer than that to repatriate the customs regulatiory framework and get the authorised economic operator status verified.
Art 50 was a crock, designed to stop the normal international law routes of exit from the EU by having a local rule. But it's there and we have to use it, because we agreed to it. And there's the hardest bit - we need to agree on the basis of triggering the article, with our EU colleagues, to extend the time frame to 4-5 years, before the letter is submitted.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/if-momentum-arent-a-jeremy-corbyn-cult-why-couldnt-they-answer-t/
Because the swing in 2010 had been so low, the overall impact over 2005-2015 is hard to assess, but although there is probably still a modest benefit from name recognition, I wouldn't think it as useful as we might have hoped.