If you added 2% from the UKIP score to the Tories and took UKIP back to general election levels Labour and the Tories would be neck and neck on 42% each.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
The CDU/CSU got their lowest voteshare since WW2 and the AfD got 12%, that is how
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
I'd forgotten about that. Have we any idea when this trial is supposed to be?
May 14th 2018 - Trial set to last six weeks.
I think Mike will be on holiday when the verdict is due.
The professionalism of the England bar never fails to impress. To get a 6 week trial out of a case where pretty much all the relevant facts are agreed is genuinely remarkable.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.
Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.
But what would the referendum be on? Britain undoubtedly had the power to leave, if it so chose, before the 2016 referendum. It only makes sense to hold another vote on something that the British people can decide for themselves. Something which is legally questionable or which relies on the goodwill of foreign governments shouldn't be on the ballot.
The deal or remaining. The Tory Eurosceptics might try to load the dice by adding Euro membership to the Remain option, but they'll still lose.
If Euro membership was added to remaining it would be 80% Leave whatever the deal was.
Every Brit to receive a cheque for $1m?
I reckon that would be enough to buy off the great British public.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
You really have no idea how the Chinese economy operates or reasons for those controls do you? Or indeed how people evade them because of that political risk.
The party of misogyny as well as anti-semitism? Nice! Wonder who it is though.
For Mike’s sake, we’re not going to speculate on who it is.
Not sure that is right, the first line of attack is the poster himself (assuming Mike is sensible and replies to queries by saying ”oh yeah that guy, his email is x and his ip address is currently y”, rather than ”i would sooner die than out the identity of one of my posters”), and the second is the moderator who let the comment stand.
I'd forgotten about that. Have we any idea when this trial is supposed to be?
May 14th 2018 - Trial set to last six weeks.
I think Mike will be on holiday when the verdict is due.
The professionalism of the England bar never fails to impress. To get a 6 week trial out of a case where pretty much all the relevant facts are agreed is genuinely remarkable.
My own hunch is that the jury are going to get a six week long discussion about actus rea versus mens rea.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
A related thought experiment:
Would Labour do better at the next election with Angela Rayner as leader - elected with Corbyn's blessing after he steps down on grounds of age in e.g. early 2021?
I'd have thought most of the plausible alternatives would be likely to increase rather than decrease Labour's chances, TP. Please don't think I'm teasing, but I really think the only thing that is sustaining the Blues at their current level in the polls is Fear Of The Corbyn. Take that away and....well, u know what.
I've been saying for some while that the odds on Labour most seats is a bit of a gift, but I'd better go before I get accused of talking up my own book.
Atb, and in case you missed it at the time, you had my very best wishes at the last election, and I hope you make it into Parliament one day. Regardless of stripe, the place needs people like you.
Fear Of The Corbyn is undoubtedly there, but it's turned out to be balanced by a certain amount of Blind Faith In The Corbyn (aka a personality cult). Generally I tend to agree that they'd be better off with a new leader (not McDonnell!), but then I thought that 2015-17, and in retrospect I think I was wrong.
And cheers for the personal message - I had a great time up in Don Valley and we shall see what the future brings.
I'd forgotten about that. Have we any idea when this trial is supposed to be?
May 14th 2018 - Trial set to last six weeks.
I think Mike will be on holiday when the verdict is due.
The professionalism of the England bar never fails to impress. To get a 6 week trial out of a case where pretty much all the relevant facts are agreed is genuinely remarkable.
My own hunch is that the jury are going to get a six week long discussion about actus rea versus mens rea.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Again, this is just nuts. While Brexit may be a set back economically, we know there are lots of successful countries outside the EU or any equivalent. I can't think of an economy with leaders as left wing as McDonnell and Corbyn that has been successful.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
A related thought experiment:
Would Labour do better at the next election with Angela Rayner as leader - elected with Corbyn's blessing after he steps down on grounds of age in e.g. early 2021?
I'd have thought most of the plausible alternatives would be likely to increase rather than decrease Labour's chances, TP. Please don't think I'm teasing, but I really think the only thing that is sustaining the Blues at their current level in the polls is Fear Of The Corbyn. Take that away and....well, u know what.
I've been saying for some while that the odds on Labour most seats is a bit of a gift, but I'd better go before I get accused of talking up my own book.
Atb, and in case you missed it at the time, you had my very best wishes at the last election, and I hope you make it into Parliament one day. Regardless of stripe, the place needs people like you.
Perhaps deselect 'the berserkers' who sound like a HoC version of the Bullingdon Club
He’s a liar. That’s what liars do. The Terry Pratchett maxim. The question is does enough of the US public care? The answer is at best a qualified maybe.
If you added 2% from the UKIP score to the Tories and took UKIP back to general election levels Labour and the Tories would be neck and neck on 42% each.
If you add the fact that Labour always over-poll you can knock another 6 points points off the Labour total That gives a 6 point Tory lead. Or all this could be straw clutching and JCIPM.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.
But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.
But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.
But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.
Only one of them was mean to George Osborne......the other one shafted Cameron.....
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
But we ran a current account deficit for most of the 1970s under the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments and applied capital controls at the same time. When the pound did fall sharply in Autumn 1976 , there were commentators who felt it was a mistake for Healey & Callaghan to bring in the IMF and that it would have been better to allow the currency to find its own level - in much the same way that Lamont & Major allowed the pound to fall post - ERM exit in September 1992.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
But we ran a current account deficit for most of the 1970s under the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments and applied capital controls at the same time. When the pound did fall sharply in Autumn 1976 , there were commentators who felt it was a mistake for Healey & Callaghan to bring in the IMF and that it would have been better to allow the currency to find its own level - in much the same way that Lamont & Major allowed the pound to fall post - ERM exit in September 1992.
Are you seriously using the 1970s as an example of a successful economy having capital controls?
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.
But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.
Theresa May doesn't look tired. She looks defeated.
How many other politicians who are 60 (in particular, ladies) have hair the colour nature intends? Heck - Thatcher wore a wig - on topic, OGH completely underestimates Mrs May's sense of duty to the electors of Maidenhead who she will continue to serve, what ever her office. She's cut from very different cloth from Cameron or Blair, for better or worse. I see yesterday's ITV poll of marginal Tory constituency chairs went largely unremarked. Funny that.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
But we ran a current account deficit for most of the 1970s under the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments and applied capital controls at the same time. When the pound did fall sharply in Autumn 1976 , there were commentators who felt it was a mistake for Healey & Callaghan to bring in the IMF and that it would have been better to allow the currency to find its own level - in much the same way that Lamont & Major allowed the pound to fall post - ERM exit in September 1992.
That's not true.
We ran a trade deficit, but because of income from overseas investments, then the period to the end of 1978 actually saw cumulative improvement in Britain foreign asset/liability mix.
Now, of course, our foreign liabilities outnumber our assets, so we need to run a trade surplus just to stand still. (Disclaimer: we don't, and therefore our net asset position, which was incredibly positive as recently as 1997, worsens every month.)
If you added 2% from the UKIP score to the Tories and took UKIP back to general election levels Labour and the Tories would be neck and neck on 42% each.
If you add the fact that Labour always over-poll you can knock another 6 points points off the Labour total That gives a 6 point Tory lead. Or all this could be straw clutching and JCIPM.
I am just pointing out that about 2% of June 2017 Tory voters are now saying they are going to vote UKIP after Florence.
Theresa May doesn't look tired. She looks defeated.
How many other politicians who are 60 (in particular, ladies) have hair the colour nature intends? Heck - Thatcher wore a wig - on topic, OGH completely underestimates Mrs May's sense of duty to the electors of Maidenhead who she will continue to serve, what ever her office. She's cut from very different cloth from Cameron or Blair, for better or worse. I see yesterday's ITV poll of marginal Tory constituency chairs went largely unremarked. Funny that.
It had a margin of error of 12%, that’s why it went unremarked.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.
Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.
But what would the referendum be on? Britain undoubtedly had the power to leave, if it so chose, before the 2016 referendum. It only makes sense to hold another vote on something that the British people can decide for themselves. Something which is legally questionable or which relies on the goodwill of foreign governments shouldn't be on the ballot.
The deal or remaining. The Tory Eurosceptics might try to load the dice by adding Euro membership to the Remain option, but they'll still lose.
If Euro membership was added to remaining it would be 80% Leave whatever the deal was.
Every Brit to receive a cheque for $1m?
I reckon that would be enough to buy off the great British public.
At the moment the EU is demanding a cheque from UK taxpayers never mind the EU paying a cheque to them, especially one anywhere near $1m a head.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
But we ran a current account deficit for most of the 1970s under the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments and applied capital controls at the same time. When the pound did fall sharply in Autumn 1976 , there were commentators who felt it was a mistake for Healey & Callaghan to bring in the IMF and that it would have been better to allow the currency to find its own level - in much the same way that Lamont & Major allowed the pound to fall post - ERM exit in September 1992.
Are you seriously using the 1970s as an example of a successful economy having capital controls?
There is a lot of mythology re-the 1970s. Inflation fell sharply in the latter part of the decade - the current account deficit was smaller than it has been for the last twenty years - and living standards improved far more than we have experienced in recent years.Unemployment was also lower - particularly when account is taken of subsequent 'adjustments' to the headline figures.
There are people on Labour Facebook groups ranting and raving at these polls. They've stopped denouncing them as Tory lies and now denounce the Tory voter - 'who are these expletives still voting Tory????' etc. I point out that the Tory vote rose at the GE and that as many people love the Tories and hate Labour as vice versa and they just think people are idiots / selfish / evil.
Its a a basic problem in society. The 30 years of consumerism selfish I'm important bollocks to you has created a mass populace who think that their opinion is the only opinion.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.
Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.
But what would the referendum be on? Britain undoubtedly had the power to leave, if it so chose, before the 2016 referendum. It only makes sense to hold another vote on something that the British people can decide for themselves. Something which is legally questionable or which relies on the goodwill of foreign governments shouldn't be on the ballot.
The deal or remaining. The Tory Eurosceptics might try to load the dice by adding Euro membership to the Remain option, but they'll still lose.
If Euro membership was added to remaining it would be 80% Leave whatever the deal was.
Every Brit to receive a cheque for $1m?
I reckon that would be enough to buy off the great British public.
I reckon every Brit to receive a cheque for £500 would be enough to swing a majority.
There have been any number of things which were due to become the New Poll Tax. None has. Not even the Iraq War. UC won't either, not least because it's a good idea, no matter how badly implemented it is.
One of the Guardian columnists predicted, some time ago, that Labour would eventually adopt the policy of a 2nd referendum. Can't remember which one - possibly Kettle.
I'd expect Labour to wait until it's almost inevitable before moving, rather than getting into a position where it was something they were campaigning for.
Yes I would agree with that. It would only be sensible for Labour to support a second referendum if there was clear dissatisfaction with May's deal (quite likely I would think) and that a referendum would produce a more decisive result than the last one. Another 52-48 split (either way) would only aggravate divisions.
But what would the referendum be on? Britain undoubtedly had the power to leave, if it so chose, before the 2016 referendum. It only makes sense to hold another vote on something that the British people can decide for themselves. Something which is legally questionable or which relies on the goodwill of foreign governments shouldn't be on the ballot.
The deal or remaining. The Tory Eurosceptics might try to load the dice by adding Euro membership to the Remain option, but they'll still lose.
If Euro membership was added to remaining it would be 80% Leave whatever the deal was.
Every Brit to receive a cheque for $1m?
I reckon that would be enough to buy off the great British public.
I reckon every Brit to receive a cheque for £500 would be enough to swing a majority.
Theresa May doesn't look tired. She looks defeated.
How many other politicians who are 60 (in particular, ladies) have hair the colour nature intends? Heck - Thatcher wore a wig - on topic, OGH completely underestimates Mrs May's sense of duty to the electors of Maidenhead who she will continue to serve, what ever her office. She's cut from very different cloth from Cameron or Blair, for better or worse. I see yesterday's ITV poll of marginal Tory constituency chairs went largely unremarked. Funny that.
It had a margin of error of 12%, that’s why it went unremarked.
MRDA
If it had been the other way round it would have passed completely unremarked - yes sireee!
If you added 2% from the UKIP score to the Tories and took UKIP back to general election levels Labour and the Tories would be neck and neck on 42% each.
If you add the fact that Labour always over-poll you can knock another 6 points points off the Labour total That gives a 6 point Tory lead. Or all this could be straw clutching and JCIPM.
I am just pointing out that about 2% of June 2017 Tory voters are now saying they are going to vote UKIP after Florence.
If you added 2% from the UKIP score to the Tories and took UKIP back to general election levels Labour and the Tories would be neck and neck on 42% each.
If you add the fact that Labour always over-poll you can knock another 6 points points off the Labour total That gives a 6 point Tory lead. Or all this could be straw clutching and JCIPM.
I am just pointing out that about 2% of June 2017 Tory voters are now saying they are going to vote UKIP after Florence.
Well that would be a wasted vote and JCIPM!
Which is why the next Tory leader will have to be a Leaver to replace Remainer May
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
But we ran a current account deficit for most of the 1970s under the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments and applied capital controls at the same time. When the pound did fall sharply in Autumn 1976 , there were commentators who felt it was a mistake for Healey & Callaghan to bring in the IMF and that it would have been better to allow the currency to find its own level - in much the same way that Lamont & Major allowed the pound to fall post - ERM exit in September 1992.
That's not true.
We ran a trade deficit, but because of income from overseas investments, then the period to the end of 1978 actually saw cumulative improvement in Britain foreign asset/liability mix.
Now, of course, our foreign liabilities outnumber our assets, so we need to run a trade surplus just to stand still. (Disclaimer: we don't, and therefore our net asset position, which was incredibly positive as recently as 1997, worsens every month.)
But on that basis the financial markets ought to be far more concerned about our current account than was the case back in the 1970s. In reality, of course, it is a macroeconomic parameter which the markets have long chosen to ignore - a mistake in my view as I incline to the opinions expressed by William Keegan -inter alia - that we have been far too obsessed with our Budget Deficit whilst failing to address our Balance of Payments Deficit.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
There are people on Labour Facebook groups ranting and raving at these polls. They've stopped denouncing them as Tory lies and now denounce the Tory voter - 'who are these expletives still voting Tory????' etc. I point out that the Tory vote rose at the GE and that as many people love the Tories and hate Labour as vice versa and they just think people are idiots / selfish / evil.
Its a a basic problem in society. The 30 years of consumerism selfish I'm important bollocks to you has created a mass populace who think that their opinion is the only opinion.
I’d take the view it’s not consumerism but a direct result of phone to vote television - Celebrity x or whatever. People feel that their opinion is critical. A referendum is a manifestation of that. I could expand further but I wonder if the UK is ungovernable. Ireland pretty much is.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
1992.
That's not true.
We ran a trade deficit, but because of income from overseas investments, then the period to the end of 1978 actually saw cumulative improvement in Britain foreign asset/liability mix.
Now, of course, our foreign liabilities outnumber our assets, so we need to run a trade surplus just to stand still. (Disclaimer: we don't, and therefore our net asset position, which was incredibly positive as recently as 1997, worsens every month.)
But on that basis the financial markets ought to be far more concerned about our current account than was the case back in the 1970s. In reality, of course, it is a macroeconomic parameter which the markets have long chosen to ignore - a mistake in my view as I incline to the opinions expressed by William Keegan -inter alia - that we have been far too obsessed with our Budget Deficit whilst failing to address our Balance of Payments Deficit.
I think people (including some politicians) fail to understand the Balance of Payments deficit, even more than the Budget Deficit.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor was proposing to re-introduce such controls had Labour won the 1987 election.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
1992.
That's not true.
We ran a trade deficit, but because of income from overseas investments, then the period to the end of 1978 actually saw cumulative improvement in Britain foreign asset/liability mix.
Now, of course, our foreign liabilities outnumber our assets, so we need to run a trade surplus just to stand still. (Disclaimer: we don't, and therefore our net asset position, which was incredibly positive as recently as 1997, worsens every month.)
But on that basis the financial markets ought to be far more concerned about our current account than was the case back in the 1970s. In reality, of course, it is a macroeconomic parameter which the markets have long chosen to ignore - a mistake in my view as I incline to the opinions expressed by William Keegan -inter alia - that we have been far too obsessed with our Budget Deficit whilst failing to address our Balance of Payments Deficit.
I think people (including some politicians) fail to understand the Balance of Payments deficit, even more than the Budget Deficit.
It feels distant, ethereal and academic.
But back in the 1960s and 1970s it was the monthly economic statistic which the media tended to focuss on - eg poor trade figures a few days before Polling Day were blamed for costing Wilson the 1970 election.
It's all right. Harriet Harman has just tweeted that she's 'dismayed' and that it's 'inexplicable' (these things are almost never inexplicable; they just explic something you'd rather they didn't). She hasn't actually demanded that anything be done.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor was proposing to re-introduce such controls had Labour won the 1987 election.
That might just about have been possible at a time when people and business still had a popular memory of them. Such a time was long ago.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
Of course a sensible politician will never say never. And capital controls did exist for several decades after world war 2 under governments of both parties. Many successful economies, like China, still have them. Personally I am much more worried about the effects of Brexit on my financial future than distant prospect of future capital controls.
Countries that have capital controls today typically run current account surpluses. This is not because capital controls somehow create an environment where you export more (duh). It is because you cannot hope to attract capital to bridge a current account deficit if you have capital controls.
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
1992.
That's not true.
We ran a trade deficit, but because of income from overseas investments, then the period to the end of 1978 actually saw cumulative improvement in Britain foreign asset/liability mix.
Now, of course, our foreign liabilities outnumber our assets, so we need to run a trade surplus just to stand still. (Disclaimer: we don't, and therefore our net asset position, which was incredibly positive as recently as 1997, worsens every month.)
But on that basis the financial markets ought to be far more concerned about our current account than was the case back in the 1970s. In reality, of course, it is a macroeconomic parameter which the markets have long chosen to ignore - a mistake in my view as I incline to the opinions expressed by William Keegan -inter alia - that we have been far too obsessed with our Budget Deficit whilst failing to address our Balance of Payments Deficit.
I think people (including some politicians) fail to understand the Balance of Payments deficit, even more than the Budget Deficit.
I can't see any of the positive reasons for us (other than we have an open economy) running a BoP deficit. I doubt our deficit is for productive capital items much for instance.
It's all right. Harriet Harman has just tweeted that she's 'dismayed' and that it's 'inexplicable' (these things are almost never inexplicable; they just explic something you'd rather they didn't). She hasn't actually demanded that anything be done.
I expect she will send him to gender awareness sessions though at the very least
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.
But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.
Read what I wrote.
Then you won’t embarrass yourself any further.
Can anyone work out what the hell he's talking about?
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor was proposing to re-introduce such controls had Labour won the 1987 election.
The most left-wing Labour manifestos ever were probably 1983 and 1987. They would have taken us out of the EEC without a further vote. They went beyond allegedly 'left' manifestos of 1945, 1966 or 2017.
I seem to recall it then had a rethink. Even with John Smith, it was re-thinking...
One 'small' matter, the Treaty of Rome bans exchange controls.
And once again, they're missing the point. Cameron taking the Tories out of the EPP was a reaction, not an action. The Tories were rightly uncomfortable in a federalist grouping and the EPP wasn't willing to accommodate the broader church needed to include the Conservative Euroscepticism.
In any case, it's bollocks coming from any politicians used to a PR system. The ECR and EPP were and are natural centre-right allies on votes in many things and if that cost the odd committee chairmanship then tough.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I think the curious structure of that sentence might indicate a certain spluttering. But the point is right: there is no way May could survive signing up to that sort of deal.
What's the 'ultimate source' of the £165,000. 9 ex-miners don't have that sort of cash hanging around to give to a Labour MP...
I believe they took a voluntary cut from the compensation payments they secured for ex-miners re vibration white finger and other industrial illnesses.
In any case, it's bollocks coming from any politicians used to a PR system. The ECR and EPP were and are natural centre-right allies on votes in many things and if that cost the odd committee chairmanship then tough.
But very unwelcome in domestic political terms. Founding the ECR gave succour to UKIP-like splinter groups in other countries so it was fundamentally hostile to the interests of mainstream European conservatism (as indeed it undermined the long-term interests of the British Conservative party).
Other than for health reasons I can't see May quitting like Cameron or Blair. Although I think she's extremely bad at it, she doesn't seem to have much outside UK politics. The Theresa May Foundation anyone? Thought not. I'd have thought she'd like to rebuild her reputation from the backbenches by weighing in on popular issues she cares about, rather than having to sing the mad tune of her party's Brexiteers.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I think the curious structure of that sentence might indicate a certain spluttering. But the point is right: there is no way May could survive signing up to that sort of deal.
I could not possibly comment on your first line but yes it would likely lead to a no confidence vote and Boris or Davis then replacing her as Tory leader and PM
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.
But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.
Read what I wrote.
Then you won’t embarrass yourself any further.
Can anyone work out what the hell he's talking about?
TSE does seem to have a serious problem with basic logic sometimes.
What's the 'ultimate source' of the £165,000. 9 ex-miners don't have that sort of cash hanging around to give to a Labour MP...
I believe they took a voluntary cut from the compensation payments they secured for ex-miners re vibration white finger and other industrial illnesses.
Blimey, sounds like whoever stopped the industry did the miners a favour.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
Theresa May doesn't look tired. She looks defeated.
How many other politicians who are 60 (in particular, ladies) have hair the colour nature intends? Heck - Thatcher wore a wig - on topic, OGH completely underestimates Mrs May's sense of duty to the electors of Maidenhead who she will continue to serve, what ever her office. She's cut from very different cloth from Cameron or Blair, for better or worse. I see yesterday's ITV poll of marginal Tory constituency chairs went largely unremarked. Funny that.
It had a margin of error of 12%, that’s why it went unremarked.
I wonder if Mike has Baxtered the Scottish sub-sample in this poll yet....
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
The size of the Brexit bill Britons are willing to pay depends more on the options you give them than the actual amount
Angela Merkel has said that there is "zero indication" that Britain will leave the EU without a deal and suggested that Tory eurosceptics calling for Theresa May to walk away from talks are "absurd".
Sounds like she is worried that we will walk away and Germany will be left picking up the tab. Obvious thing to say is that is ridiculous if we do the one thing they don't want us to do.
Merkel has made a career out of misreading the situation - looks like she is going out with a bang.
I remember Leavers saying she was going to lose the election because of her open borders policy.
How'd that turn out.
You're on here every day saying May lost the last election since she lost her majority.
But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.
Read what I wrote.
Then you won’t embarrass yourself any further.
Can anyone work out what the hell he's talking about?
TSE does seem to have a serious problem with basic logic sometimes.
He's gone from being one of the more sensible and interesting posters to a having the maturity of a toddler after the referendum and Osborne's departure.
I'm not complaining about devaluation, I'm complaining about Labour's likely introduction of capital controls. Nobody from the Labour party will give a straight answer "no they won't be introduced" so as far as I'm concerned that means they probably will be, and for that reason above all others I'll continue to reluctantly vote for a government I almost despise.
No, they won't be introduced. Not practical, not sensible and nobody has proposed it.
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
Sentence 1 you cannot know; sentence 2 so what (x 3); sentence 3 |McD has expressly said he has people doing "war-game type scenario planning" for " this concept of capital flight" Not very good wargamers if the thought of capital controls hasn't occurred to them. What are they proposing, a years long hearts and minds campaign designed to softly nudge the nasty capitalists into staying invested here?
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
Margaret Thatcher's lowest point was in December 1981, two and half years after she became prime minister. Theresa May has only been there for one and a half years, so maybe it's a bit early to make judgements on how the rest of her premiership will develop.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
Has the EU actually explained what the £60bn is for exactly? loi Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
It does make you wonder what happened to the legal advice HMG reportedly had, that got many Leavers excited, showing that the UK had no Brexit liability.
"Meanwhile, Labour face an electoral map that heavy favourites makes them, on paper at least, the next time."
You can back Labour for most seats on Betfair at 1.96 right now. They should be much shorter than that.
Stop scaring me.
And, also, ignore me on this subject.
I am normally ok at detaching confirmation bias from my betting. But this is one situation where I'm genuinely so terrified of the outcome, I can't bring myself to bet on what I know to be the real odds-on facts.
BBC just reporting Theresa May not denying she's going to cave in to the EU and shell out £60bn for nothing.
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
If she does that is your 48 signatures most likely sad to say
I'd go to £30bn but that's as far as I'd go.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
As a Tory I agree, though on a personal level I could accept £60 bn having voted Remain I know it would be suicide for the party to agree to it unless public opinion changes drastically.
What a ridiculous and arbitrary line in the sand. You are saying that having done the calcs, run through a few scenarios, and wargamed the outcomes, you have confirmed that £30bn is fine but £60bn is simply not possible for the party.
What exactly are you basing your view on?
None is fine but public opinion is quite clear that they will not pay £60 bn and as RCS says some of the £60bn to cover issues like possible Irish default on its bailout is absurd.
Comments
Introducing capital controls to one of the most open economies in the world, and one which runs a substantial current account deficit would be... ugly.
I reckon that would be enough to buy off the great British public.
And cheers for the personal message - I had a great time up in Don Valley and we shall see what the future brings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11376527/Tory-MPs-tried-to-sabotage-BBC-documentary-about-Westminster.html
Then accept new MPs like TP.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/921333046309277696
But somehow you also think Merkel didn't lose hers despite the fact she might not even be able to put together a government at all.
Then you won’t embarrass yourself any further.
We ran a trade deficit, but because of income from overseas investments, then the period to the end of 1978 actually saw cumulative improvement in Britain foreign asset/liability mix.
Now, of course, our foreign liabilities outnumber our assets, so we need to run a trade surplus just to stand still. (Disclaimer: we don't, and therefore our net asset position, which was incredibly positive as recently as 1997, worsens every month.)
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/921332563913986048
https://twitter.com/TimandraHarknes/status/921286176744640512
Its a a basic problem in society. The 30 years of consumerism selfish I'm important bollocks to you has created a mass populace who think that their opinion is the only opinion.
https://mobile.twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/921336438599421953
(Thank you, thank you, I'm here all night.)
If it had been the other way round it would have passed completely unremarked - yes sireee!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41688280
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/921335938827149313
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/921336562348187648
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/921339297126604800
(So far as I know, you're the only person to even raise the idea as a concern.)
It feels distant, ethereal and academic.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/921346714044391424
The woman is completely and utterly bonkers!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/921323063945453574
to which Tom Watson retweeted with this observation.
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/921347514787352576
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/balance-of-payments-trade-imbalances
I can't see any of the positive reasons for us (other than we have an open economy) running a BoP deficit. I doubt our deficit is for productive capital items much for instance.
If it's a choice of £60bn or walk away we should walk away.
I seem to recall it then had a rethink. Even with John Smith, it was re-thinking...
One 'small' matter, the Treaty of Rome bans exchange controls.
Another chaotic week for the Tories. So what happens? They close the poll gap to 2 points.
In any case, it's bollocks coming from any politicians used to a PR system. The ECR and EPP were and are natural centre-right allies on votes in many things and if that cost the odd committee chairmanship then tough.
Also could we just promise what they want and then drop it if we don't get a decent deal? Or do they actually want the money up front?
What exactly are you basing your view on?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/09/14/why-amount-brexit-divorce-bill-doesnt-matter-much/
People really have lost their minds over Brexit.
Some of it is clearly bullshit: why would we stump up EUR12bn to cover the risk that Ireland defaults on its bailout? (Even if you accepted the principle, we'd pay when they defaulted, not in advance. And it's all ridiculously academic as Ireland is not going to default given its debt-to-GDP is now below the UK and falling fast.)
Others have more substance; as in, even if you disagree there is a legal liability, you can understand their case. The EU is saying that the UK government agreed to the 2016 to 2020 budget, but now won't pay for the last two years of the period. (Although this will likely be finessed through us paying something during a two year transition period.)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983
Gallup/Telegraph opinion poll, 14th December 1981:
Alliance 50.5%
Lab 23.5%
Con 23.0%
MORI, 14th December 1981:
Alliance 43%
Lab 29%
Con 27%
And, also, ignore me on this subject.
I am normally ok at detaching confirmation bias from my betting. But this is one situation where I'm genuinely so terrified of the outcome, I can't bring myself to bet on what I know to be the real odds-on facts.