From Reuters - The ONS said GDP growth in year-on-year terms rose to 2.1 percent from 1.9 percent in the final three months of 2016. This was the strongest rate since the second quarter of 2015, but slightly weaker than with economists' average forecast of a pick-up to 2.2 percent.
So, UK annual growth rate above 2%. Eurozone PMIs may be looking good, but they'd kill for that.
Ask yourself who and where are the apparently substantial number of SNP voters who have transferred their allegiances to the Conservatives. Then bet accordingly on the constituency markets.
According to the panel base and Survation it is 6% of 2015 SNP voters.
A lot depends on where former SLAB voters have gone. I cannot see them substantially going to the Tories.
The Holyrood elections show they have substantially gone to the Tories. After 2015 the Indy supporters had mostly left Labour, leaving just Unionists.
They are now going to the Cons.
How many will be able to hold their noses and vote Tory in FPTP though. You would have to be very sick labour person to do that.
The truly insane thing is that if you look at the Hanretty analysis of BES data to see how voting distributions are changing... https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/warning-signs-for-labour-50b6cd1501d8 ... he's finding that the Tories were a hair under 10 points up in SNP-held seats back in January - against a national polling score of 39% (up by about 1% on the GE score).
There has to be a point where this distribution doesn't hold, and maybe the sample size was low, but if you overlay that onto their polling boost since, you get ridiculous numbers of Tory seats. No fewer than 19 (nearly comparable with 1983, but in a field of fewer seats)
My personal hesitance on this is that overlaying the national polling boost since then can lead to an error if the Tories had already come up with a big boost in Scotland by January over-and-above the national polling scores
Okay - using the change from the 2015 GE result and the 2016 Scottish constituency results as a weak proxy to measure that, and therefore reducing the Tory bonus in SNP seats gives a slightly less incredible score of 14 Tory seats. Still find it a bit implausible, though.
Consequently, Scottish Labour will be centre its campaign on just three constituencies:
* Edinburgh South, where in 2015 Ian Murray was the only Labour survivor against the Nationalist landslide which saw the party ship 40 of its 41 Westminster seats
* East Renfrewshire, Jim Murphy’s old seat, where the SNP’s Kirsten Oswald has a majority of 3,718 and where the Labour candidate this week was announced as Blair MacDougall, the former Better Together chief, and
* East Lothian, where Nationalist MP George Kerevan has a majority of 6,083 over Labour.
Sir Norfolk, I shall check this, thanks for the suggestion.
Ahem, you're correct
Huzzah!
Phew!
I shall certainly join you in complaining if they do try to welsh on this. It was a poorly priced market, but not an obvious error in the way other fat-finger mis-pricings on the constituency bets were.
Pedant note , it is "welch" not "welsh" which insults a whole country.
Mr. kle4, not gambling for the money? That's an unorthodox approach.
Mr. Eagles, I suspect you'll be alright.
I think my exposure to this election runs literally into the tens of pounds.
Just wish that splendid Wokingham bet had stood.
I think my Richmond Park has been replaced by money on lib dems at 2.5! Rather than. 26 as originally.
Ah - was actually looking at conservative to win Richmond park. Lib dem bet still there. Not sure whether it's wise to bet more on Tories to ensure a win either way... The worst of both worlds would be if they withdraw the bet later and then the lib Dems do hold the seat!
Mention of Aberdeen South at the top of that list reminds me of Iain Sproat, who did a chicken run from the seat to Roxburgh in 1983, only to see the seat stay in the Tory column while he lost to the Liberal and stayed out of Parliament for nine years. Always cheers me up!
It's also a reminder that, even in the days when UNS was a better predictor, it was far from perfect. I do slightly wonder if the fact NE Scotland is slipping back due to oil prices (not quite so many Ferraris outside the smart granite homes now) might have an impact on Tory prospects. Having said that, the region was pretty good for the blue team in the Scottish Parliament elections.
From Reuters - The ONS said GDP growth in year-on-year terms rose to 2.1 percent from 1.9 percent in the final three months of 2016. This was the strongest rate since the second quarter of 2015, but slightly weaker than with economists' average forecast of a pick-up to 2.2 percent.
So, UK annual growth rate above 2%. Eurozone PMIs may be looking good, but they'd kill for that.
The biggest drop off in the UK figure was services. The debt fuelled spending is what has kept the figures bouyant, but now looking like austerity all round. House price figures support this too.
The sugar fix of devaluation seems to have helped exports for the short term though. Single Market Membership helps of course.
What would be the -3 S.D. event for the Tories here anyway?
No overall Majority perhaps.
Con Most seats or Corbyn PM I make almost vanishingly unlikely.
"Con Most seats... I make almost vanishingly unlikely"
Can I have 99/1 on that then :P
No. But I'll give a hundred quid to a charity of your choice if Labour get the most seats. You can give 10 pence if they do. I reckon that's probably about right.
Ask yourself who and where are the apparently substantial number of SNP voters who have transferred their allegiances to the Conservatives. Then bet accordingly on the constituency markets.
According to the panel base and Survation it is 6% of 2015 SNP voters.
A lot depends on where former SLAB voters have gone. I cannot see them substantially going to the Tories.
The Holyrood elections show they have substantially gone to the Tories. After 2015 the Indy supporters had mostly left Labour, leaving just Unionists.
They are now going to the Cons.
How many will be able to hold their noses and vote Tory in FPTP though. You would have to be very sick labour person to do that.
It depends, are they Unionists first and Labour second or the other way round. It looks like anywhere of about a quarter of 2015 Labour supporters are Unionist first.
Mr. rkrkrk, generally, I agree. I've only hedged that Lib Dem/Richmond Park bet because the odds were so long. I'm going to let most (maybe all) of my other constituency bets stand.
Sir Norfolk, I shall check this, thanks for the suggestion.
Ahem, you're correct
Huzzah!
Phew!
I shall certainly join you in complaining if they do try to welsh on this. It was a poorly priced market, but not an obvious error in the way other fat-finger mis-pricings on the constituency bets were.
Pedant note , it is "welch" not "welsh" which insults a whole country.
Consequently, Scottish Labour will be centre its campaign on just three constituencies:
* Edinburgh South, where in 2015 Ian Murray was the only Labour survivor against the Nationalist landslide which saw the party ship 40 of its 41 Westminster seats
* East Renfrewshire, Jim Murphy’s old seat, where the SNP’s Kirsten Oswald has a majority of 3,718 and where the Labour candidate this week was announced as Blair MacDougall, the former Better Together chief, and
* East Lothian, where Nationalist MP George Kerevan has a majority of 6,083 over Labour.
What would be the -3 S.D. event for the Tories here anyway?
No overall Majority perhaps.
Con Most seats or Corbyn PM I make almost vanishingly unlikely.
"Con Most seats... I make almost vanishingly unlikely"
Can I have 99/1 on that then :P
No. But I'll give a hundred quid to a charity of your choice if Labour get the most seats. You can give 10 pence if they do. I reckon that's probably about right.
Happy to take that, I'll make my share of the deal £1 - that is, if you're serious. And you meant "don't" for my side.
What would be the -3 S.D. event for the Tories here anyway?
No overall Majority perhaps.
Con Most seats or Corbyn PM I make almost vanishingly unlikely.
"Con Most seats... I make almost vanishingly unlikely"
Can I have 99/1 on that then :P
No. But I'll give a hundred quid to a charity of your choice if Labour get the most seats. You can give 10 pence if they do. I reckon that's probably about right.
Happy to take that, I'll make my share of the deal £1 - that is, if you're serious. And you meant "don't" for my side.
Ask yourself who and where are the apparently substantial number of SNP voters who have transferred their allegiances to the Conservatives. Then bet accordingly on the constituency markets.
According to the panel base and Survation it is 6% of 2015 SNP voters.
A lot depends on where former SLAB voters have gone. I cannot see them substantially going to the Tories.
The Holyrood elections show they have substantially gone to the Tories. After 2015 the Indy supporters had mostly left Labour, leaving just Unionists.
They are now going to the Cons.
How many will be able to hold their noses and vote Tory in FPTP though. You would have to be very sick labour person to do that.
It depends, are they Unionists first and Labour second or the other way round. It looks like anywhere of about a quarter of 2015 Labour supporters are Unionist first.
You mean the LOL and SDL mobs, they are dying off like the dinosaurs.
THey are not obliged to give equal time to all parties until Tuesday of next week
Surely it is a failing of the system if UKIP are supposed to get more coverage this time than last?
Do you remember the bloody arguments on here last time? All the justifications for why Farage shouldn't be in the debates. You're quite right, Ukip are not that important this time around and should be treated as such.
More old bollocks, she said very publicly on TV that there would be no truck with the Nasty party. You and your toilet paper right wing rags just cannot accept reality. Keep thinking Cons are surging.
Exactly. The Tories want a strong SNP to keep Labour out of power. They have no competition in England. In 2010, Brown won 67 of 99 seats in Scotland and Wales, and a slightly stronger performance in England would have seen him as PM.
A Tory Wales with a strong SNP in Scotland makes Labour unelectable.
More old bollocks, she said very publicly on TV that there would be no truck with the Nasty party. You and your toilet paper right wing rags just cannot accept reality. Keep thinking Cons are surging.
But the Scottish Conservatives are surging while the Nats wilt. You're in for some Nasty shocks in the coming weeks.
Consequently, Scottish Labour will be centre its campaign on just three constituencies:
* Edinburgh South, where in 2015 Ian Murray was the only Labour survivor against the Nationalist landslide which saw the party ship 40 of its 41 Westminster seats
* East Renfrewshire, Jim Murphy’s old seat, where the SNP’s Kirsten Oswald has a majority of 3,718 and where the Labour candidate this week was announced as Blair MacDougall, the former Better Together chief, and
* East Lothian, where Nationalist MP George Kerevan has a majority of 6,083 over Labour.
From Reuters - The ONS said GDP growth in year-on-year terms rose to 2.1 percent from 1.9 percent in the final three months of 2016. This was the strongest rate since the second quarter of 2015, but slightly weaker than with economists' average forecast of a pick-up to 2.2 percent.
So, UK annual growth rate above 2%. Eurozone PMIs may be looking good, but they'd kill for that.
The biggest drop off in the UK figure was services. The debt fuelled spending is what has kept the figures bouyant, but now looking like austerity all round. House price figures support this too.
The sugar fix of devaluation seems to have helped exports for the short term though. Single Market Membership helps of course.
Yep, figures are disappointing given the advantages that the devaluation has given us - especially in our biggest export market, which is in clear recovery mode.
More old bollocks, she said very publicly on TV that there would be no truck with the Nasty party. You and your toilet paper right wing rags just cannot accept reality. Keep thinking Cons are surging.
I have to admit I find her attitude on that one unfortunate. I know both sides will be happy to rule such things out, but local councils are, well, local, sometimes for the good of the locality working with any other parties can be necessary depending on how the seats balance out, and leave national issues aside for once. But everyone seems keener than ever to decalre others untouchable, even at local level, it's sad and stupid whoever rules such things out, prizing ideological purity over local cooperation.
Mr. rkrkrk, generally, I agree. I've only hedged that Lib Dem/Richmond Park bet because the odds were so long. I'm going to let most (maybe all) of my other constituency bets stand.
I suppose if they did cancel the bet... Provided i notice i could then bet again on LD at new unimproved odds and limit a loss at least!
Mr. rkrkrk, generally, I agree. I've only hedged that Lib Dem/Richmond Park bet because the odds were so long. I'm going to let most (maybe all) of my other constituency bets stand.
I suppose if they did cancel the bet... Provided i notice i could then bet again on LD at new unimproved odds and limit a loss at least!
If they palp Richmond (THey won't) then I'd ask for your Tory bet to be voided also.
Sir Norfolk, I shall check this, thanks for the suggestion.
Ahem, you're correct
Huzzah!
Phew!
I shall certainly join you in complaining if they do try to welsh on this. It was a poorly priced market, but not an obvious error in the way other fat-finger mis-pricings on the constituency bets were.
Pedant note , it is "welch" not "welsh" which insults a whole country.
First good post I've ever seen from you ;-)
And it's faze not phase if ever anyone feels the need...
From Reuters - The ONS said GDP growth in year-on-year terms rose to 2.1 percent from 1.9 percent in the final three months of 2016. This was the strongest rate since the second quarter of 2015, but slightly weaker than with economists' average forecast of a pick-up to 2.2 percent.
So, UK annual growth rate above 2%. Eurozone PMIs may be looking good, but they'd kill for that.
The biggest drop off in the UK figure was services. The debt fuelled spending is what has kept the figures bouyant, but now looking like austerity all round. House price figures support this too.
The sugar fix of devaluation seems to have helped exports for the short term though. Single Market Membership helps of course.
The reason I said perspective is because these are one quarter's figures... just for more perspective, today's French GDP figures show +0.3% month on month growth, featuring a -0.4% fall in retail sales... was that caused by a Brexit devaluation?
Of course it is. That's why she is doing it. But when it comes to actually doing a deal it is not going to be any help at all. She is boxing herself into unnecessary corners for party political reasons.
From Reuters - The ONS said GDP growth in year-on-year terms rose to 2.1 percent from 1.9 percent in the final three months of 2016. This was the strongest rate since the second quarter of 2015, but slightly weaker than with economists' average forecast of a pick-up to 2.2 percent.
So, UK annual growth rate above 2%. Eurozone PMIs may be looking good, but they'd kill for that.
The biggest drop off in the UK figure was services. The debt fuelled spending is what has kept the figures bouyant, but now looking like austerity all round. House price figures support this too.
The sugar fix of devaluation seems to have helped exports for the short term though. Single Market Membership helps of course.
The reason I said perspective is because these are one quarter's figures... just for more perspective, today's French GDP figures show +0.3% month on month growth, featuring a -0.4% fall in retail sales... was that caused by a Brexit devaluation?
That’s what many of us having been saying for a while. It’s the medium and trend that’s important, not the short term. The description of a 'sugar-fix’ for devaluation was a good one.
"I imagine the construction slowdown will be mainly commercial. Who wants to attend hundreds of millions on a new tower block when you don't know what Brexit is likely to look like. " RCS100
More and taller tower blocks planned for City of London than ever before. Indeed, the wailing Evening Standard has frequent double-page spreaders on this. Have you seen the new NED for example opened this very week?
The fall in construction is deeply affected by drop offs in Infrastructure spend - ie maintining oil rigs etc - this fell 3.7% in the last construction figures. In terms of resi and commercial the market is healthy and there is plenty of finance with political risk playing only a small part.
Longer term, over-allocation to property as an asset class is unwinding and so demand is dampening on the investor side but currently balanced by fiat money from around the world looking for a haven, as ever.
Houesebuilders have been limited in real growth by labour shortages for ages, for which we should have little sympathy as they never train anyone and are the ones desperate to take anyone in from abroad to boost staff numbers who can be dropped on whim - their share prices have done well on the back of this but they collectively very nearly went for a burton in 2008/9 so keep their costs as flexible as possible.
Ask yourself who and where are the apparently substantial number of SNP voters who have transferred their allegiances to the Conservatives. Then bet accordingly on the constituency markets.
According to the panel base and Survation it is 6% of 2015 SNP voters.
A lot depends on where former SLAB voters have gone. I cannot see them substantially going to the Tories.
The Holyrood elections show they have substantially gone to the Tories. After 2015 the Indy supporters had mostly left Labour, leaving just Unionists.
They are now going to the Cons.
Probably a fair bit of churn there.Some evidence from polls and crossbreaks that Labour is not far off 20% in Scotland now. If they were to creep back to the 22% received in last year's Holyrood elections with the SNP falling to circa 38% , Labour would be in contention to reverse some of their 2015 losses .
THey are not obliged to give equal time to all parties until Tuesday of next week
That's not quite right - the "major parties" rule is pretty widely misunderstood.
The Ofcom requirement during elections is for "due weight" to be given to "major parties" and "appropriate coverage" to for other parties.
The "major parties" list was reviewed by Ofcom in 2015 (and I understand won't be re-reviewed this time as it's a snap election). For this election, like the last one, they are the Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems in England, Scotland and Wales; UKIP in England and Wales but not Scotland; the SNP in Scotland; and Plaid in Wales. To their chagrin, the Greens are not a major party.
Importantly, "due weight" does NOT mean the same as equal coverage, nor in fact did it entitle people to a chair at the debate last time (and obviously there won't be one this time). Although broadcasters certainly took it into account on the debates, they didn't have to invite the Greens (not major as defined), nor the SNP or Plaid (only major in their regions, and not invited in 2010). Where they would have run into trouble is if they'd, say, invited the Greens and failed to invite UKIP. They probably could have got away (with the regulator) with only Labour and Tory, and maybe cutaway bits to others... but given 1/3 of people voted for neither, they'd have copped a lot of flak.
Although there are undoubtedly saddos with stopwatches who will call up if one party of other gets 10 seconds less on Newsnight one night, that's simply not the rule and while some poor bugger at each of the BBC, C4, ITV, Sky etc will doubtless spend a miserable few weeks listening to these whingers endlessly on the 'phone, they'll get no dice with Ofcom if there's a formal complaint. The "weight" is across the broadcaster's output not in any individual broadcast, and it's "due" weight not "equal" weight.
But it will certainly mean a coverage boost for the Lib Dems and UKIP compared with non-election periods. Does it mean UKIP will get the same, or more, than 2015? No - the broadcasters are entitled to take account of the fact that they had zero MPs at dissolution (fewer, in fact, than the non-major Greens), and are polling at a level that is unlikely to change that situation. "Due weight" for them is thus probably somewhat less weight than last time.
As I have already set out, we share many of the same objectives. However, there are clear barriers to making your proposals a reality. Scotland’s accession to EFTA, and then the EEA, would not be deliverable and, importantly, would require the consent of all EFTA and EU member states. Any divergence between EU and UK law - as a result, perhaps, of new EU regulation - could lead to the creation of new barriers to trade within our Union, which could take the form of additional controls and checks on trade within the United Kingdom. Given that trade with the rest of the UK is worth four times trade with the EU, I do not believe that such significant disruption to the internal UK market is in Scotland’s - or the UK’s - best interests. And Scotland’s businesses could face a confusing mix of regulatory regimes.
Re GDP numbers, I'll repeat (with new words) what I've said for some time.
I would expect that nominal income growth will continue to run along at about 4%. There's no signs that the labour market has tightened sufficiently to push that number higher, and we are close to full employment, so the opportunity for aggregate nominal income to rise due to a larger workforce is smaller.
In the past couple of years, 4% nominal income growth was enough to drive GDP up at a c. 2.5% rate.
There are two drags this year, however:
1. Inflation is higher. While I'm not as bearish as some, inflation is likely to end up north of 2% this year. This will be a c. 1% drag on GDP growth.
2. Investment (aka Gross Capital Formation) is likely to be weak this year (and probably next too.) Investment decisions are being deferred; construction spending is also beginning to sag a bit. I would expect that to be a further 0.5% drag.
And there is one boost: net exports should improve. Cheaper sterling (hopefully) means we export more and import less. The improving Eurozone economy benefits us here. I would expect net exports to add c. 0.5% to growth.
Put these together, and I think we end up a touch below 1.5% for the year. Given our savings rate is at an all time low, the risk is probably on the downside.
"As a result of the campaign, Jeremy Corbyn will have to rely on winning seats from the Conservatives in England if he is to be the next Prime Minister."
Hahahhahahahahaha.
Hey now, I am sure he will win some in England. Always sone against the tide.
Not always. Labour certainly did not gain any seats in 1931 - neither did the Tories in 1966 and 1997.
Sir Norfolk, I shall check this, thanks for the suggestion.
Ahem, you're correct
Huzzah!
Phew!
I shall certainly join you in complaining if they do try to welsh on this. It was a poorly priced market, but not an obvious error in the way other fat-finger mis-pricings on the constituency bets were.
Pedant note , it is "welch" not "welsh" which insults a whole country.
First good post I've ever seen from you ;-)
And it's faze not phase if ever anyone feels the need...
"As a result of the campaign, Jeremy Corbyn will have to rely on winning seats from the Conservatives in England if he is to be the next Prime Minister."
Hahahhahahahahaha.
Hey now, I am sure he will win some in England. Always sone against the tide.
Not always. Labour certainly did not gain any seats in 1931 - neither did the Tories in 1966 and 1997.
If Lab gain one against the tide I would go for Brighton Kemptown
Maybe discussed already... But should Vince really be such a favourite in Twickenham? Tories at 2/1 to hold the seat....
Where are they 2/1? I can see 7/4 on Skybet currently.
2/1 would be fairly generous. Cable should be favourite as he's a big name in a heavily Remain constituency. The Heathrow issue also favours him (his opponent is opposed too of course, but the national Tory policy has obviously reversed since 2015). But marginal rather than heavy favourite IMO - the demographics are reasonable for the Tories and, let's face it, the polls are good for them.
Ask yourself who and where are the apparently substantial number of SNP voters who have transferred their allegiances to the Conservatives. Then bet accordingly on the constituency markets.
According to the panel base and Survation it is 6% of 2015 SNP voters.
A lot depends on where former SLAB voters have gone. I cannot see them substantially going to the Tories.
The Holyrood elections show they have substantially gone to the Tories. After 2015 the Indy supporters had mostly left Labour, leaving just Unionists.
They are now going to the Cons.
Probably a fair bit of churn there.Some evidence from polls and crossbreaks that Labour is not far off 20% in Scotland now. If they were to creep back to the 22% received in last year's Holyrood elections with the SNP falling to circa 38% , Labour would be in contention to reverse some of their 2015 losses .
Here is, for me, the key danger of comparing 2015 to 2016
Maybe discussed already... But should Vince really be such a favourite in Twickenham? Tories at 2/1 to hold the seat....
Where are they 2/1? I can see 7/4 on Skybet currently.
2/1 would be fairly generous. Cable should be favourite as he's a big name in a heavily Remain constituency. The Heathrow issue also favours him (his opponent is opposed too of course, but the national Tory policy has obviously reversed since 2015). But marginal rather than heavy favourite IMO - the demographics are reasonable for the Tories and, let's face it, the polls are good for them.
Betfair sports book
Agree with your logic. I'd add Lib Dems currently only polling a little better than last time...
Of course it is. That's why she is doing it. But when it comes to actually doing a deal it is not going to be any help at all. She is boxing herself into unnecessary corners for party political reasons.
Why? The EU27 say they are totally united and will have a common position. She's agreeing that they will. How on earth does that box her in?
What is most striking about recent developments is how her calling of this election has totally nonplussed our EU friends, who were clearly planning to exploit the Gina Miller intervention and the confusion in parliament to blackmail her into a bad deal, on the basis that she didn't have the political stength to walk away. Match point to Theresa in the first set.
"As a result of the campaign, Jeremy Corbyn will have to rely on winning seats from the Conservatives in England if he is to be the next Prime Minister."
Hahahhahahahahaha.
Hey now, I am sure he will win some in England. Always sone against the tide.
Not always. Labour certainly did not gain any seats in 1931 - neither did the Tories in 1966 and 1997.
I was wondering that. I can only imagine how humiliating it would have been to lose your seat to a Tory on the night of a massive Labour landslide.
From Reuters - The ONS said GDP growth in year-on-year terms rose to 2.1 percent from 1.9 percent in the final three months of 2016. This was the strongest rate since the second quarter of 2015, but slightly weaker than with economists' average forecast of a pick-up to 2.2 percent.
So, UK annual growth rate above 2%. Eurozone PMIs may be looking good, but they'd kill for that.
The biggest drop off in the UK figure was services. The debt fuelled spending is what has kept the figures bouyant, but now looking like austerity all round. House price figures support this too.
The sugar fix of devaluation seems to have helped exports for the short term though. Single Market Membership helps of course.
The reason I said perspective is because these are one quarter's figures... just for more perspective, today's French GDP figures show +0.3% month on month growth, featuring a -0.4% fall in retail sales... was that caused by a Brexit devaluation?
Today's Spanish GDP figures were Plus 0.8% another solid performance .
It's also clearly true (beyond the understandable need for them to stick up for the remaining members)
Can we also remember that Mrs M (German) has elections coming up, just as Mrs M (British) does. Foghorn politics will hopefully be replaced by grown up bargaining once elections are behind them and the doors to the negotiating room are closed.
It's also clearly true (beyond the understandable need for them to stick up for the remaining members)
Can we also remember that Mrs M (German) has elections coming up, just as Mrs M (British) does. Foghorn politics will hopefully be replaced by grown up bargaining once elections are behind them and the doors to the negotiating room are closed.
We were previously told that Merkel's elections were a reason why she couldn't afford to be tough because she would have German industry breathing down her neck about how many cars they sell to us...
THey are not obliged to give equal time to all parties until Tuesday of next week
That's not quite right - the "major parties" rule is pretty widely misunderstood.
The Ofcom requirement during elections is for "due weight" to be given to "major parties" and "appropriate coverage" to for other parties.
The "major parties" list was reviewed by Ofcom in 2015 (and I understand won't be re-reviewed this time as it's a snap election). For this election, like the last one, they are the Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems in England, Scotland and Wales; UKIP in England and Wales but not Scotland; the SNP in Scotland; and Plaid in Wales. To their chagrin, the Greens are not a major party.
Importantly, "due weight" does NOT mean the same as equal coverage, nor in fact did it entitle people to a chair at the debate last time (and obviously there won't be one this time). Although broadcasters certainly took it into account on the debates, they didn't have to invite the Greens (not major as defined), nor the SNP or Plaid (only major in their regions, and not invited in 2010). Where they would have run into trouble is if they'd, say, invited the Greens and failed to invite UKIP. They probably could have got away (with the regulator) with only Labour and Tory, and maybe cutaway bits to others... but given 1/3 of people voted for neither, they'd have copped a lot of flak.
Although there are undoubtedly saddos with stopwatches who will call up if one party of other gets 10 seconds less on Newsnight one night, that's simply not the rule and while some poor bugger at each of the BBC, C4, ITV, Sky etc will doubtless spend a miserable few weeks listening to these whingers endlessly on the 'phone, they'll get no dice with Ofcom if there's a formal complaint. The "weight" is across the broadcaster's output not in any individual broadcast, and it's "due" weight not "equal" weight.
But it will certainly mean a coverage boost for the Lib Dems and UKIP compared with non-election periods. Does it mean UKIP will get the same, or more, than 2015? No - the broadcasters are entitled to take account of the fact that they had zero MPs at dissolution (fewer, in fact, than the non-major Greens), and are polling at a level that is unlikely to change that situation. "Due weight" for them is thus probably somewhat less weight than last time.
The Election Period and when the Election Guidelineppendi(“the Guidelines”come into effect The Election Period when these Guidelines come into effbeginsat 00.01 onWedn3rdMay(the dissolution Parliament, 25 working days before polling day).
It's also clearly true (beyond the understandable need for them to stick up for the remaining members)
Can we also remember that Mrs M (German) has elections coming up, just as Mrs M (British) does. Foghorn politics will hopefully be replaced by grown up bargaining once elections are behind them and the doors to the negotiating room are closed.
Maybe discussed already... But should Vince really be such a favourite in Twickenham? Tories at 2/1 to hold the seat....
Where are they 2/1? I can see 7/4 on Skybet currently.
2/1 would be fairly generous. Cable should be favourite as he's a big name in a heavily Remain constituency. The Heathrow issue also favours him (his opponent is opposed too of course, but the national Tory policy has obviously reversed since 2015). But marginal rather than heavy favourite IMO - the demographics are reasonable for the Tories and, let's face it, the polls are good for them.
Betfair sports book
Agree with your logic. I'd add Lib Dems currently only polling a little better than last time...
Of course it is. That's why she is doing it. But when it comes to actually doing a deal it is not going to be any help at all. She is boxing herself into unnecessary corners for party political reasons.
Why? The EU27 say they are totally united and will have a common position. She's agreeing that they will. How on earth does that box her in?
What is most striking about recent developments is how her calling of this election has totally nonplussed our EU friends, who were clearly planning to exploit the Gina Miller intervention and the confusion in parliament to blackmail her into a bad deal, on the basis that she didn't have the political stength to walk away. Match point to Theresa in the first set.
She is saying that the EU 27 are ganging up on the UK. She is framing the forthcoming negotiation in a way that will make it even more difficult for her to make the concessions that will be needed to ensure we get a good deal, which she has already made harder by ruling out continued membership of the single market and the customs union.
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.
And we really should not leave the subject without saying hello to former New Hampshire Congressman Richard "Dick" Swett.....
My 3 favourites are: Mustapha Kunt - Turkish military attache in Moscow during WW2 Magnus Organ - Finnish politician Fanny Pong - secretary of Shell Hong Kong's finance director about 15 years ago
Mustapha Kunt
I was reading about the Moscow cocktail circuit. Apparently staff at the other embassies would diplomatically refer to him as Mr Cant but were corrected every time by the gentleman himself, "No, I'm a Kunt. Kunt"
It's also clearly true (beyond the understandable need for them to stick up for the remaining members)
Can we also remember that Mrs M (German) has elections coming up, just as Mrs M (British) does. Foghorn politics will hopefully be replaced by grown up bargaining once elections are behind them and the doors to the negotiating room are closed.
Comments
otherwise it's just a coalition of chaos.
oh yes.
From Reuters - The ONS said GDP growth in year-on-year terms rose to 2.1 percent from 1.9 percent in the final three months of 2016. This was the strongest rate since the second quarter of 2015, but slightly weaker than with economists' average forecast of a pick-up to 2.2 percent.
So, UK annual growth rate above 2%. Eurozone PMIs may be looking good, but they'd kill for that.
Con Most seats or Corbyn PM I make almost vanishingly unlikely.
Happy Mrs Duffy Day, everyone.
Can I have 99/1 on that then :P
Lib dem bet still there. Not sure whether it's wise to bet more on Tories to ensure a win either way... The worst of both worlds would be if they withdraw the bet later and then the lib Dems do hold the seat!
Still would rather lay Le Pen (and not in that sense!) at 8.2 though
It's also a reminder that, even in the days when UNS was a better predictor, it was far from perfect. I do slightly wonder if the fact NE Scotland is slipping back due to oil prices (not quite so many Ferraris outside the smart granite homes now) might have an impact on Tory prospects. Having said that, the region was pretty good for the blue team in the Scottish Parliament elections.
The sugar fix of devaluation seems to have helped exports for the short term though. Single Market Membership helps of course.
SNP lead vs Con Scotland = +13
Con lead vs Lab England = +26
Sturgeon refuses to rule out SNP coalitions with Tories in local councils
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/21/sturgeon-refuses-to-rule-out-snp-coalitions-with-tories-in-local-councils
And yes if they don't.
Exactly. The Tories want a strong SNP to keep Labour out of power. They have no competition in England. In 2010, Brown won 67 of 99 seats in Scotland and Wales, and a slightly stronger performance in England would have seen him as PM.
A Tory Wales with a strong SNP in Scotland makes Labour unelectable.
Tories at 2/1 to hold the seat....
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/04/theresa-mays-warning-eu-ganging-britain-politically-potent
And it's faze not phase if ever anyone feels the need...
More and taller tower blocks planned for City of London than ever before. Indeed, the wailing Evening Standard has frequent double-page spreaders on this. Have you seen the new NED for example opened this very week?
The fall in construction is deeply affected by drop offs in Infrastructure spend - ie maintining oil rigs etc - this fell 3.7% in the last construction figures. In terms of resi and commercial the market is healthy and there is plenty of finance with political risk playing only a small part.
Longer term, over-allocation to property as an asset class is unwinding and so demand is dampening on the investor side but currently balanced by fiat money from around the world looking for a haven, as ever.
Houesebuilders have been limited in real growth by labour shortages for ages, for which we should have little sympathy as they never train anyone and are the ones desperate to take anyone in from abroad to boost staff numbers who can be dropped on whim - their share prices have done well on the back of this but they collectively very nearly went for a burton in 2008/9 so keep their costs as flexible as possible.
http://www.parliament.scot/S5_European/General Documents/CTEER_Minister_M.Russell_2017.04.27.pdf
That's bound to improve relations.....
The Ofcom requirement during elections is for "due weight" to be given to "major parties" and "appropriate coverage" to for other parties.
The "major parties" list was reviewed by Ofcom in 2015 (and I understand won't be re-reviewed this time as it's a snap election). For this election, like the last one, they are the Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems in England, Scotland and Wales; UKIP in England and Wales but not Scotland; the SNP in Scotland; and Plaid in Wales. To their chagrin, the Greens are not a major party.
Importantly, "due weight" does NOT mean the same as equal coverage, nor in fact did it entitle people to a chair at the debate last time (and obviously there won't be one this time). Although broadcasters certainly took it into account on the debates, they didn't have to invite the Greens (not major as defined), nor the SNP or Plaid (only major in their regions, and not invited in 2010). Where they would have run into trouble is if they'd, say, invited the Greens and failed to invite UKIP. They probably could have got away (with the regulator) with only Labour and Tory, and maybe cutaway bits to others... but given 1/3 of people voted for neither, they'd have copped a lot of flak.
Although there are undoubtedly saddos with stopwatches who will call up if one party of other gets 10 seconds less on Newsnight one night, that's simply not the rule and while some poor bugger at each of the BBC, C4, ITV, Sky etc will doubtless spend a miserable few weeks listening to these whingers endlessly on the 'phone, they'll get no dice with Ofcom if there's a formal complaint. The "weight" is across the broadcaster's output not in any individual broadcast, and it's "due" weight not "equal" weight.
But it will certainly mean a coverage boost for the Lib Dems and UKIP compared with non-election periods. Does it mean UKIP will get the same, or more, than 2015? No - the broadcasters are entitled to take account of the fact that they had zero MPs at dissolution (fewer, in fact, than the non-major Greens), and are polling at a level that is unlikely to change that situation. "Due weight" for them is thus probably somewhat less weight than last time.
As I have already set out, we share many of the same objectives. However, there are clear barriers to making your proposals a reality. Scotland’s accession to EFTA, and then the EEA, would not be deliverable and, importantly, would require the consent of all EFTA and EU member states. Any divergence between EU and UK law - as a result, perhaps, of new EU regulation - could lead to the creation of new barriers to trade within our Union, which could take the form of additional controls and checks on trade within the United Kingdom. Given that trade with the rest of the UK is worth four times trade with the EU, I do not believe that such significant disruption to the internal UK market is in Scotland’s - or the UK’s - best interests. And Scotland’s businesses could face a confusing mix of regulatory regimes.
I would expect that nominal income growth will continue to run along at about 4%. There's no signs that the labour market has tightened sufficiently to push that number higher, and we are close to full employment, so the opportunity for aggregate nominal income to rise due to a larger workforce is smaller.
In the past couple of years, 4% nominal income growth was enough to drive GDP up at a c. 2.5% rate.
There are two drags this year, however:
1. Inflation is higher. While I'm not as bearish as some, inflation is likely to end up north of 2% this year. This will be a c. 1% drag on GDP growth.
2. Investment (aka Gross Capital Formation) is likely to be weak this year (and probably next too.) Investment decisions are being deferred; construction spending is also beginning to sag a bit. I would expect that to be a further 0.5% drag.
And there is one boost: net exports should improve. Cheaper sterling (hopefully) means we export more and import less. The improving Eurozone economy benefits us here. I would expect net exports to add c. 0.5% to growth.
Put these together, and I think we end up a touch below 1.5% for the year. Given our savings rate is at an all time low, the risk is probably on the downside.
2/1 would be fairly generous. Cable should be favourite as he's a big name in a heavily Remain constituency. The Heathrow issue also favours him (his opponent is opposed too of course, but the national Tory policy has obviously reversed since 2015). But marginal rather than heavy favourite IMO - the demographics are reasonable for the Tories and, let's face it, the polls are good for them.
2015 Turnout: 71.1% (+7.3)
2016 Turnout: 55.6% (+5.2)
There were huge changes in turnout in both 2015 and 2016 and a massive turnout gap between 2015 and 2016.
The SNP gained the most from the turnout boost in 2015 and the Tories benefitted the most in 2016.
If you can predict the turnout then you can predict the result.
Agree with your logic. I'd add Lib Dems currently only polling a little better than last time...
What is most striking about recent developments is how her calling of this election has totally nonplussed our EU friends, who were clearly planning to exploit the Gina Miller intervention and the confusion in parliament to blackmail her into a bad deal, on the basis that she didn't have the political stength to walk away. Match point to Theresa in the first set.
Not sure anyone will believe that. It doesn't even make sense.
Foghorn politics will hopefully be replaced by grown up bargaining once elections are behind them and the doors to the negotiating room are closed.
The Election Period
when these Guidelines come into effbeginsat 00.01 onWedn3rdMay(the dissolution Parliament, 25 working days before polling day).
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/pdfs/2017draftgeneralelectionguidelines.pd
I am struggling to see how our EU friends have been non-plussed by May calling the election. Where is your evidence for claiming this? And the idea that Gina Miller was going to force May into agreeing a bad deal is risible. Parliament, of course, had already voted to give her a free hand.