Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").
It does 'feel' as though Labour are starting to come unstuck, but we've been wrong guessing the polls virtually every week.
Corbyn has been defying political gravity all through this campaign, and none of that has made any sense to me.
I really don't think the polls will move much till polling day. The question is what is the real lead - is it 14% or 6%. No-one including the pollsters really know.
Yes they do, most are pensioners and want control of immigration and money reclaimed from the EU and restoration of sovereignty, for them that is non negotiable
And tariffs, and recession, and hard borders...
The good thing is that with the proposed withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance, the loss of the triple lock and the dementia tax, May is busy making sure the leave voting pensioners shoulder most of Osborne's punishment budget.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
I think we're all agree whatever it shows, it's already out-of-date. We need a daily tracker, simple as.
With plus/minus 2 per cent AT LEAST, its just an expensive random number generator.
Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
Not really.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
There are some demands that are well beyond legal obligations - if the EU choose to relocate agencies based in the UK that's entirely up to them - but to expect us to pay for it is a bit rich.....Similarly demanding our share for refugees in Turkey post Brexit when we are already the biggest donor bar the USA is taking the mick.....
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.
Corbyn needs to roll out a good old-fashioned "1 week to save the NHS" campaign IMO.
It will have more traction now than it did with Copeland IMO, because the social care clusterfuck has reactivated some of the old suspicions of Tory intentions (I've had a couple of people say things on the doorstep like "if she's going to start making people pay for their own elderly care, who says she won't just start charging for all sorts of things the NHS does?" -- that's especially from younger and middle-aged people who, frankly, don't seem to really understand how the social care system works currently). Plus, as much as PBers might sneer, I still think there's some mileage in the idea that she might put parts of the NHS out to tender for private American companies, as part of her desperation to get a trade deal with Trump.
Yes they do, most are pensioners and want control of immigration and money reclaimed from the EU and restoration of sovereignty, for them that is non negotiable
And tariffs, and recession, and hard borders...
Tariffs would also be applied to EU goods, if you are retired a recession does not bother you as much (and of course that is not an inevitable result of being outside the single market either especially with most UK exports going outside the EU) and many would welcome hard borders given rising terrorism
So Robert Harris and Alastair Campbell are at least to some extent supporting the Labour campaign, which is good to see. Credit where it's due. The Tory war criminal Blair is off counting his money somewhere. Has Peter Mandelson chipped in at all?
I expect Mandelson will vote LD
I thought Peers couldn't vote in a General Election?
If HYUFD says he will, he will. He is still waiting if Le Pen won the first round.
So Robert Harris and Alastair Campbell are at least to some extent supporting the Labour campaign, which is good to see. Credit where it's due. The Tory war criminal Blair is off counting his money somewhere. Has Peter Mandelson chipped in at all?
I expect Mandelson will vote LD
I thought Peers couldn't vote in a General Election?
If HYUFD says he will, he will. He is still waiting if Le Pen won the first round.
Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
Not really.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
Their own reasoning on that figure looks suspect. But If we a re legally committed we should pay.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.
We don't pay €10bn per year. That is our net payment.
Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").
It's probably the worst sustained bit of pressure they've has, not that is unscathed. We shall see how they do.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.
We don't pay €10bn per year. That is our net payment.
Yes, precisely. That's why it's the relevant number.
Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
Not really.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
There are some demands that are well beyond legal obligations - if the EU choose to relocate agencies based in the UK that's entirely up to them - but to expect us to pay for it is a bit rich.....Similarly demanding our share for refugees in Turkey post Brexit when we are already the biggest donor bar the USA is taking the mick.....
The question is not whether we are the biggest donor or not. If we are signed up to the Turkey refugees deal, then we are committed.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics got loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
That doesn't, however, mean they are going to go out and actually vote...
Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
Not really.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
Their own reasoning on that figure looks suspect. But If we a re legally committed we should pay.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics got loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
Withour having to wait 4-5 years to correct the error. Maybe they will turnout this time. It won't change the outcome though, only the degree.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics got loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
That doesn't, however, mean they are going to go out and actually vote...
Quite. The referendum went the way it did (arguably) because they didn't turn out.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
Not all of them but enough to push turnout over 63%.
Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?
That's exactly what should happen. On election as Speaker, he or she should be deemed simultaneously elected as the MP for the Palace of Westminster, or some such, and a by-election be held in his / her previous constituency.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
No-one really knows to be honest. We know Corbyn has enthused the young. If and a big if, the young do vote then all bets are off the table. Common convention is to weight the young vote significantly lower in polls - does that still hold true?
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
Not all of them but enough to push turnout over 63%.
Buy on SPIN.
Yes, the markets are currently pricing in a reduction in turnout compared with 2015. It's a clear buy IMO.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
Maybe. They missed the once in a generation vote (although we know more turned out than originally thought). But a GE? Plenty more of those in any young person's lifetime.
Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").
It does 'feel' as though Labour are starting to come unstuck, but we've been wrong guessing the polls virtually every week.
Corbyn has been defying political gravity all through this campaign, and none of that has made any sense to me.
Maybe I'm right that the IRA line has no traction, even if some clever people know on which issues other, simpler folk should decide their votes.
Or perhaps it does, which is why the Conservatives have a healthy lead in the polls. Labour is not really defying gravity once you account for the virtual disappearance of the LibDems and Ukip.
#womanshour trending on twitter, and all the tweets are from astroturfers who have all been told to say "I am not a fan of Corbyn but...". The scale of the op makes me slightly more inclined than I was to think Lab are also successfully gaming the online polls.
Fake news fake photos fake tweets... now fake polls. Sad.
Labour keep saying that all of their policies have been 'carefully costed'. By who? None other than...the Labour party.
It's the gaping chasm in this whole election campaign - economic credibility. Labour's manifesto would fall to pieces in 10 minutes of sustained scrutiny, but for some reason, they've been allowed to spin their own line, especially over the nationalisation stuff.
I'd like to see Hammond and McDonnell go head to head on prime time BBC, with perhaps Paul Johnson of the IFS as an impartial commentator.
Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").
I'm thinking "Do something!" too. He could get supporters to go on the attack. Boris Johnson looks like a good target.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
Even if they vote on a par with 2010, ICM will be badly wrong.
#womanshour trending on twitter, and all the tweets are from astroturfers who have all been told to say "I am not a fan of Corbyn but...". The scale of the op makes me slightly more inclined than I was to think Lab are also successfully gaming the online polls.
Fake news fake photos fake tweets... now fake polls. Sad.
It'll be fake bets next. Oh... we've had that with tbat guy and his 12 year old. Life imitates art.
I think Corbyn has enthused the already political inclined young who live in London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.
But were they ever going to vote for anyone other than Labour? I doubt it. He isn't winning converts, he is just firing up armchair warriors who see Twitter as the battleground - rather than the ballot box.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
No-one really knows to be honest. We know Corbyn has enthused the young. If and a big if, the young do vote then all bets are off the table. Common convention is to weight the young vote significantly lower in polls - does that still hold true?
Are you suggesting Corbyn could actually win this election if 18-24 yr olds bother to vote?
Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
Not really.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
The UK defaulted on some debt in the 1930s, IIRC.
I've no doubt that in the event of a Crash Brexit there'd be an almighty argument about what was owed. Problem is, would there be a Court that could hear the case? If not, the EU could say one thing and the UK could say the other and both could quote Treaty texts but because both would be relying on interpretation of general points, who could determine a definitive ruling in the absence of a deal? In reality, if matters were so bad that a Brexit deal couldn't be done, there'd be no goodwill on offer to make payments that one side disputed.
Obviously, this only applies if the Tories win. If Labour forms the next government, Corbyn will probably hand over the full £100bn, plus Hampshire and half of Dorset as a goodwill gesture.
Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?
That's exactly what should happen. On election as Speaker, he or she should be deemed simultaneously elected as the MP for the Palace of Westminster, or some such, and a by-election be held in his / her previous constituency.
And the Speakership should be limited to a single term. No ifs, no buts. 5 years and then out.
The one place turnout will surely drop is Scotland, but England & Wales could have a double wave of youth turnout (Corbyn) and those 2 million brexiteers (May) who came out for Ref2016. Not all of them, but lots of them.
I think Corbyn has enthused the already political inclined young who live in London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.
But were they ever going to vote for anyone other than Labour? I doubt it. He isn't winning converts, he is just firing up armchair warriors who see Twitter as the battleground - rather than the ballot box.
You're right. They would have voted Labour anyway.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
As well as buying turnout at 63% (Sporting Index, Star Spreads), there's an interesting set of other markets on Star Spreads. Number of Female MPs (oddly, excluding Northern Ireland) at 185-190 is a buy; depending on the final Lab/Con seat split, I think the final tally will be in the region 195 to 205. They also have a market on the number of Con vs Lab female MPs; on my model, the figures will be something like (Con female, Lab female MPs):
Con 350 total: 75, 107 Con 370 total: 84, 93 Con 380 total: 89, 89 Con 390 total: 94, 86
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
No-one really knows to be honest. We know Corbyn has enthused the young. If and a big if, the young do vote then all bets are off the table. Common convention is to weight the young vote significantly lower in polls - does that still hold true?
Are you suggesting Corbyn could actually win this election if 18-24 yr olds bother to vote?
Not win but if national leads are 6-8% then NOM can come into play with our young bothering to turn up at the polling stations. And as we all know the Tories have zero traction with the young - I wonder if there are any young PB Tories?
I think Corbyn has enthused the already political inclined young who live in London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.
But were they ever going to vote for anyone other than Labour? I doubt it. He isn't winning converts, he is just firing up armchair warriors who see Twitter as the battleground - rather than the ballot box.
You're right. They would have voted Labour anyway.
So there is no real point in enthusing them. Armchair slacktivists don't win anything.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
Why? And what are these "severe" consequences?
Doh! Not on the ball today Casino? The calamity that is Brexit for example!
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
Why? And what are these "severe" consequences?
Doh! Not on the ball today Casino? The calamity that is Brexit for example!
Yes. And what are these severe consequences?
We were told voters would head to the Liberal Democrats in droves over their anger for Brexit.
Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
Not really.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
The UK defaulted on some debt in the 1930s, IIRC.
I've no doubt that in the event of a Crash Brexit there'd be an almighty argument about what was owed. Problem is, would there be a Court that could hear the case? If not, the EU could say one thing and the UK could say the other and both could quote Treaty texts but because both would be relying on interpretation of general points, who could determine a definitive ruling in the absence of a deal? In reality, if matters were so bad that a Brexit deal couldn't be done, there'd be no goodwill on offer to make payments that one side disputed.
Obviously, this only applies if the Tories win. If Labour forms the next government, Corbyn will probably hand over the full £100bn, plus Hampshire and half of Dorset as a goodwill gesture.
Thanks. I'm finding it hard enough to sell my house at the moment as it is.
Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
Not really.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
The UK defaulted on some debt in the 1930s, IIRC.
I've no doubt that in the event of a Crash Brexit there'd be an almighty argument about what was owed. Problem is, would there be a Court that could hear the case? If not, the EU could say one thing and the UK could say the other and both could quote Treaty texts but because both would be relying on interpretation of general points, who could determine a definitive ruling in the absence of a deal? In reality, if matters were so bad that a Brexit deal couldn't be done, there'd be no goodwill on offer to make payments that one side disputed.
Obviously, this only applies if the Tories win. If Labour forms the next government, Corbyn will probably hand over the full £100bn, plus Hampshire and half of Dorset as a goodwill gesture.
Thanks. I'm finding it hard enough to sell my house at the moment as it is.
To be brutally honest, your inability to sell your house might be one of those severe consequences of Brexit. Property is gonna take a hit.
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.
Yes, something like that. Personally I'd go for something like an annual payment, starting at (say) 75% of our net current payment in Year 1, and dropping off over three or four years to a couple of €bn (including whatever contributions we make to programmes we remain part of or affiliated to).
But, for that, the quid pro quo has obviously got to be something worthwhile: a free trade deal and a smooth transition which avoids disruption as much as possible. If they're not offering that, indeed refusing even to discuss it, I'd say that we should pay nothing and let them sue us in some non-existent court.
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
No-one really knows to be honest. We know Corbyn has enthused the young. If and a big if, the young do vote then all bets are off the table. Common convention is to weight the young vote significantly lower in polls - does that still hold true?
Are you suggesting Corbyn could actually win this election if 18-24 yr olds bother to vote?
Not win but if national leads are 6-8% then NOM can come into play with our young bothering to turn up at the polling stations. And as we all know the Tories have zero traction with the young - I wonder if there are any young PB Tories?
A 6% lead would give the Tories a majority of around 34, and that's assuming Corbyn gets a highly improbable 37%. Even a 4% lead would give them a double figure majority.
Labour would have to be touching 40% for a NOM. That's not far off what they achieved in 2001.
Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?
That's exactly what should happen. On election as Speaker, he or she should be deemed simultaneously elected as the MP for the Palace of Westminster, or some such, and a by-election be held in his / her previous constituency.
And the Speakership should be limited to a single term. No ifs, no buts. 5 years and then out.
No, I disagree with term limits. If people want someone to do a job, and that person is happy to do it then they should be able to.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.
Looks like they're asking for much, much more than that. €70bn net, €100bn+ gross
However the gap is maybe not unbridgeable, if the EU is ready to compromise. Trouble is, I don't think they are. If Barnier was in charge, then yes, but there are 27 governments, the EP, the EC who all want the maximum possible, and not a penny from their own coffers...
We're gonna Crash Out.
The exit deal is on QMV, which means that if the UK can square something with Germany, France and Poland, it'll go through the Council. The EP, I agree, is more of a problem.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.
Looks like they're asking for much, much more than that. €70bn net, €100bn+ gross
However the gap is maybe not unbridgeable, if the EU is ready to compromise. Trouble is, I don't think they are. If Barnier was in charge, then yes, but there are 27 governments, the EP, the EC who all want the maximum possible, and not a penny from their own coffers...
We're gonna Crash Out.
And if we pay nothing we ger the benefit of some £x billion in regained payments and the opportunity cost (if that's the right term) of the ransom we refuse to pay. Id still prefer a deal but the eu are making it easy to be happy to be out.
Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
Not really.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
The UK defaulted on some debt in the 1930s, IIRC.
I've no doubt that in the event of a Crash Brexit there'd be an almighty argument about what was owed. Problem is, would there be a Court that could hear the case? If not, the EU could say one thing and the UK could say the other and both could quote Treaty texts but because both would be relying on interpretation of general points, who could determine a definitive ruling in the absence of a deal? In reality, if matters were so bad that a Brexit deal couldn't be done, there'd be no goodwill on offer to make payments that one side disputed.
Obviously, this only applies if the Tories win. If Labour forms the next government, Corbyn will probably hand over the full £100bn, plus Hampshire and half of Dorset as a goodwill gesture.
Thanks. I'm finding it hard enough to sell my house at the moment as it is.
You moving already? Thought you only just bought it?
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.
Looks like they're asking for much, much more than that. €70bn net, €100bn+ gross
However the gap is maybe not unbridgeable, if the EU is ready to compromise. Trouble is, I don't think they are. If Barnier was in charge, then yes, but there are 27 governments, the EP, the EC who all want the maximum possible, and not a penny from their own coffers...
We're gonna Crash Out.
And if we pay nothing we ger the benefit of some £x billion in regained payments and the opportunity cost (if that's the right term) of the ransom we refuse to pay. Id still prefer a deal but the eu are making it easy to be happy to be out.
Will trade continue as if nothing has happened even on WTO terms ? Presumably the EU will be taking us to court somewhere.
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.
Yes, something like that. Personally I'd go for something like an annual payment, starting at (say) 75% of our net current payment in Year 1, and dropping off over three or four years to a couple of €bn (including whatever contributions we make to programmes we remain part of or affiliated to).
But, for that, the quid pro quo has obviously got to be something worthwhile: a free trade deal and a smooth transition which avoids disruption as much as possible. If they're not offering that, indeed refusing even to discuss it, I'd say that we should pay nothing and let them sue us in some non-existent court.
Have you for a moment thought why they would go along with it ? Why would they give a non-club member better privileges than that accorded to a club member ?
We are still under the illusion that somehow we are more important to them than they are to us. Our exports to them is roughly 10% of our GDP. Their exports to us is roughly 3.5% of their GDP.
We go on talking about their car exports. What would a BMW owner in the UK buy as a replacement ? I don't even know if there is an equivalent model for a 5 or 7 series. But I tell you they have lots of replacements for Qashqai and the Mini.
In addition, roughly 70% of the components of our automobiles are sourced from the EU. I know they can be replaced. But to begin with, it will be WTO duties regardless of where we buy from.
We want free trade with others. USA, Australia, NZ.... Would Agriculrure be in those deals ? Then bye-bye to our farmers.
Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").
True. Not seen any 8 days to save the NHS type posters yet!
But the difference then was that Harold Wilson was a tried and tested (and trusted) former Prime Minister, who looked more likely to cut a deal with the NUM than Heath, so bringing an end to the (economically damaging) 3 day week. Jeremy Corbyn's economic manifesto is (to use a mot juste) manifestly pie in the sky - particularly in its predicted tax receipts.
Comments
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago
We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change
It will have more traction now than it did with Copeland IMO, because the social care clusterfuck has reactivated some of the old suspicions of Tory intentions (I've had a couple of people say things on the doorstep like "if she's going to start making people pay for their own elderly care, who says she won't just start charging for all sorts of things the NHS does?" -- that's especially from younger and middle-aged people who, frankly, don't seem to really understand how the social care system works currently). Plus, as much as PBers might sneer, I still think there's some mileage in the idea that she might put parts of the NHS out to tender for private American companies, as part of her desperation to get a trade deal with Trump.
In the privacy of the voting booth it's between you and your ballot paper, and nobody else.
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=@emmabarnett zionist&src=typd
Buy on SPIN.
Or perhaps it does, which is why the Conservatives have a healthy lead in the polls. Labour is not really defying gravity once you account for the virtual disappearance of the LibDems and Ukip.
It's the gaping chasm in this whole election campaign - economic credibility. Labour's manifesto would fall to pieces in 10 minutes of sustained scrutiny, but for some reason, they've been allowed to spin their own line, especially over the nationalisation stuff.
I'd like to see Hammond and McDonnell go head to head on prime time BBC, with perhaps Paul Johnson of the IFS as an impartial commentator.
I've no doubt that in the event of a Crash Brexit there'd be an almighty argument about what was owed. Problem is, would there be a Court that could hear the case? If not, the EU could say one thing and the UK could say the other and both could quote Treaty texts but because both would be relying on interpretation of general points, who could determine a definitive ruling in the absence of a deal? In reality, if matters were so bad that a Brexit deal couldn't be done, there'd be no goodwill on offer to make payments that one side disputed.
Obviously, this only applies if the Tories win. If Labour forms the next government, Corbyn will probably hand over the full £100bn, plus Hampshire and half of Dorset as a goodwill gesture.
As well as buying turnout at 63% (Sporting Index, Star Spreads), there's an interesting set of other markets on Star Spreads. Number of Female MPs (oddly, excluding Northern Ireland) at 185-190 is a buy; depending on the final Lab/Con seat split, I think the final tally will be in the region 195 to 205. They also have a market on the number of Con vs Lab female MPs; on my model, the figures will be something like (Con female, Lab female MPs):
Con 350 total: 75, 107
Con 370 total: 84, 93
Con 380 total: 89, 89
Con 390 total: 94, 86
As ever, DYOR, you can lose your shirt, etc etc.
No doubt, the Labour vote will be huge in those cities (excepting parts of Birmingham) but it won't scoop up lots of extra seats.
We were told voters would head to the Liberal Democrats in droves over their anger for Brexit.
It hasn't happened.
NEW THREAD
But, for that, the quid pro quo has obviously got to be something worthwhile: a free trade deal and a smooth transition which avoids disruption as much as possible. If they're not offering that, indeed refusing even to discuss it, I'd say that we should pay nothing and let them sue us in some non-existent court.
Labour would have to be touching 40% for a NOM. That's not far off what they achieved in 2001.
No.
Id still prefer a deal but the eu are making it easy to be happy to be out.
We are still under the illusion that somehow we are more important to them than they are to us. Our exports to them is roughly 10% of our GDP. Their exports to us is roughly 3.5% of their GDP.
We go on talking about their car exports. What would a BMW owner in the UK buy as a replacement ? I don't even know if there is an equivalent model for a 5 or 7 series. But I tell you they have lots of replacements for Qashqai and the Mini.
In addition, roughly 70% of the components of our automobiles are sourced from the EU. I know they can be replaced. But to begin with, it will be WTO duties regardless of where we buy from.
We want free trade with others. USA, Australia, NZ.... Would Agriculrure be in those deals ? Then bye-bye to our farmers.