Beth Rigby is utterly stupid. How can you say that there was a Stop Rory campaign when he lost votes rather than other candidates being lent votes to beat him?
I tried to explain my musings earlier in a reply to JJ.
The data shows that the UK trade deficit is primarily about trade with the EU and that this is a deficit which has greatly increased during the last two decades.
Perhaps that means that because of the faults and failings of the UK economy / UK society generally / UK politicians that we are fundamentally unsuited to being in a single market with countries which do not have the same problems.
If you look at countries around the world, trade deficits are a function of household savings rates. High household savings rate (Germany, Switzerland or Singapore) -> trade surplus. Low household savings rate (UK or US) -> trade deficit.
Countries which have gone from trade deficit to surplus (like Spain), have done so largely through increasing household savings rates. Sometimes this is done by increasing exports and the surplus not being spent. Sometimes it is done by suppressing consumption. And sometimes it's a mix of the two.
It's important to appreciate that British people don't demand EU "things". They demand things where the cheapest supply is from the EU.
Take wine. If we left the EU and entered into a free trade agreement with Australia/NZ, the chances are that Brits would drink almost exactly the same amount of wine as before, it's just that the changing tariffs would mean that we bought less French wine, and more Australian. Our trade balance wouldn't change, unless we either (a) started producing more wine (which would of course mean diverting agricultural land from other uses, probably netting us back at zero), or (b) drank less wine.
Just to add: countries with high levels of home ownership, and where house prices have risen historically tend also to run trade deficits*. Why? Because people feel they don't need to save because they have assets at the "Bank of Bricks & Mortar".
* Spain is an interesting example of this. Prices went through the roof, people felt rich. They spent beyond their means. The trade deficit shot up. House prices came down, and suddenly people had to save to compensate. Result, the trade deficit narrowed sharply.
Yet you believe house prices should be kept high via mechanisms such as mortgage interest rate relief yet i’ve always argued high house prices are a drain on the economy.
Looks like there was some skulduggery in the first round to neutralise Raab, and the skulduggers were then shifted to neutralise Rory. A finely executed manoeuvre, if I'm right.
I know it won't happen this way, but it would be a bit funny if all those who go out between now and the end are firm anti-Boris's, so he actually comes second, or only just in front.
Beth Rigby is utterly stupid. How can you say that there was a Stop Rory campaign when he lost votes rather than other candidates being lent votes to beat him?
Looks like there was some skulduggery in the first round to neutralise Raab, and the skulduggers were then shifted to neutralise Rory. A finely executed manoeuvre, if I'm right.
True but it leave Rory to fight another day, especially if things play out the way a lot of us expect.
So Rory now needs to decide who he wants to join as a number 2(ish). I think Gove is the most obvious one as joining Sajid probably means losing again. Rory backing Gove would give Hunt a lot to cope with.
Looks like there was some skulduggery in the first round to neutralise Raab, and the skulduggers were then shifted to neutralise Rory. A finely executed manoeuvre, if I'm right.
A bit of a risk to let Rory into that debate, though? Or perhaps not given that Boris talked straight past Rory on occasions.
Looks like there was some skulduggery in the first round to neutralise Raab, and the skulduggers were then shifted to neutralise Rory. A finely executed manoeuvre, if I'm right.
Ooh.... clever. Yes that would make a lot of sense.
I still don't understand the reasoning behind that. On a political calculation, shouldn't it be better for Johnson if he faces his softest opponent on Brexit, rather than someone who can compete for the Brexiteer vote?
Stewart will spend a whole month putting Boris’s reputation through the mincer, and he’ll do it very well too and get a lot of publicity for it.
Boris doesn’t want to be a lame duck before he starts.
I suppose that's right. Now that there are only fellow-fantasists in the race, we'll have to rely on the media to scrutinise Johnson. (Puts head in hands.)
Rory did not look Prime Ministerial nor a team player in the debate. He was also clueless on Brexit. Will Saj pull out now (was Nick Palmer right all along)? Think Gove will be BJ's opponent now.
Looks like there was some skulduggery in the first round to neutralise Raab, and the skulduggers were then shifted to neutralise Rory. A finely executed manoeuvre, if I'm right.
True but it leave Rory to fight another day, especially if things play out the way a lot of us expect.
And he is well qualified by clan for a king over the water role.
If the debate had an effect, the questioners being dubious (at least in part) is even more serious.
[For what it's worth, I don't think that made a matereial difference, but I do think it's another black mark against debates generally].
TV debates are here to stay. Get that into your head. Last night’s might have been shambolic but riding this bizarre hobby horse of yours won’t change the fact that having them is generally better than not having them.
Do we know how early the member ballots go out? Is there a decent amount of campaign time and time for performance at the hustings to tell, before the papers land on doormats?
Do we know how early the member ballots go out? Is there a decent amount of campaign time and time for performance at the hustings to tell, before the papers land on doormats?
That will be fun. He is clearly the best candidate remaining. I’m not a fan but he is a bright bloke and a proven tormentor of the tubby clown.
That picture of Gove and Johnson the morning after the Brexit vote result will be plastered everywhere if it does end up with 1 of them finally being nailed to delivery of it.
I tried to explain my musings earlier in a reply to JJ.
The data shows that the UK trade deficit is primarily about trade with the EU and that this is a deficit which has greatly increased during the last two decades.
Perhaps that means that because of the faults and failings of the UK economy / UK society generally / UK politicians that we are fundamentally unsuited to being in a single market with countries which do not have the same problems.
If you look at countries around the world, trade deficits are a function of household savings rates. High household savings rate (Germany, Switzerland or Singapore) -> trade surplus. Low household savings rate (UK or US) -> trade deficit.
Countries which have gone from trade deficit to surplus (like Spain), have done so largely through increasing household savings rates. Sometimes this is done by increasing exports and the surplus not being spent. Sometimes it is done by suppressing consumption. And sometimes it's a mix of the two.
It's important to appreciate that British people don't demand EU "things". They demand things where the cheapest supply is from the EU.
Take wine. If we left the EU and entered into a free trade agreement with Australia/NZ, the chances are that Brits would drink almost exactly the same amount of wine as before, it's just that the changing tariffs would mean that we bought less French wine, and more Australian. Our trade balance wouldn't change, unless we either (a) started producing more wine (which would of course mean diverting agricultural land from other uses, probably netting us back at zero), or (b) drank less wine.
I am shocked, nay appalled, that you regard French and Australian wines as substitutable goods
That will be fun. He is clearly the best candidate remaining. I’m not a fan but he is a bright bloke and a proven tormentor of the tubby clown.
That picture of Gove and Johnson the morning after the Brexit vote result will be plastered everywhere if it does end up with 1 of them finally being nailed to delivery of it.
I topped up on Gove yesterday. Pretty pleased with that.
Do we know how early the member ballots go out? Is there a decent amount of campaign time and time for performance at the hustings to tell, before the papers land on doormats?
On our letters from the party we are to receive or ballots between the 6th and 8th of July and if we have not received them by the 12th July we are to contact the party
Looks like there was some skulduggery in the first round to neutralise Raab, and the skulduggers were then shifted to neutralise Rory. A finely executed manoeuvre, if I'm right.
Ensuring Javid had just enough votes to get through yesterday was a particularly cute finesse too
But no Rory really didn't look prime ministerial last night.
He'll know that too though. I have a lot of time for Mr Stewart, but he's a little overly fond of his own view. When Rory knows whathe's talking about he's really very right. He knows little of much though, and I'm sure he's learned that tonight.
I tried to explain my musings earlier in a reply to JJ.
The data shows that the UK trade deficit is primarily about trade with the EU and that this is a deficit which has greatly increased during the last two decades.
Perhaps that means that because of the faults and failings of the UK economy / UK society generally / UK politicians that we are fundamentally unsuited to being in a single market with countries which do not have the same problems.
If you look at countries around the world, trade deficits are a function of household savings rates. High household savings rate (Germany, Switzerland or Singapore) -> trade surplus. Low household savings rate (UK or US) -> trade deficit.
Countries which have gone from trade deficit to surplus (like Spain), have done so largely through increasing household savings rates. Sometimes this is done by increasing exports and the surplus not being spent. Sometimes it is done by suppressing consumption. And sometimes it's a mix of the two.
It's important to appreciate that British people don't demand EU "things". They demand things where the cheapest supply is from the EU.
Take wine. If we left the EU and entered into a free trade agreement with Australia/NZ, the chances are that Brits would drink almost exactly the same amount of wine as before, it's just that the changing tariffs would mean that we bought less French wine, and more Australian. Our trade balance wouldn't change, unless we either (a) started producing more wine (which would of course mean diverting agricultural land from other uses, probably netting us back at zero), or (b) drank less wine.
I am shocked, nay appalled, that you regard French and Australian wines as substitutable goods
Looks like there was some skulduggery in the first round to neutralise Raab, and the skulduggers were then shifted to neutralise Rory. A finely executed manoeuvre, if I'm right.
Ensuring Javid had just enough votes to get through yesterday was a particularly cute finesse too
I have my doubts as to whether our politicians are competent enough to organise things that well.
Given their behaviour in 2016, when May walked over both of them, the same doubts about Johnson and Gove remain. Why did they stand aside in the first place?
If the debate had an effect, the questioners being dubious (at least in part) is even more serious.
[For what it's worth, I don't think that made a matereial difference, but I do think it's another black mark against debates generally].
TV debates are here to stay. Get that into your head. Last night’s might have been shambolic but riding this bizarre hobby horse of yours won’t change the fact that having them is generally better than not having them.
I do think we would benefit from having them defined by the Electoral Commission sure we can skip the tedious will he/won’t he and debate negotiations
I tried to explain my musings earlier in a reply to JJ.
The data shows that the UK trade deficit is primarily about trade with the EU and that this is a deficit which has greatly increased during the last two decades.
Perhaps that means that because of the faults and failings of the UK economy / UK society generally / UK politicians that we are fundamentally unsuited to being in a single market with countries which do not have the same problems.
If you look at countries around the world, trade deficits are a function of household savings rates. High household savings rate (Germany, Switzerland or Singapore) -> trade surplus. Low household savings rate (UK or US) -> trade deficit.
Countries which have gone from trade deficit to surplus (like Spain), have done so largely through increasing household savings rates. Sometimes this is done by increasing exports and the surplus not being spent. Sometimes it is done by suppressing consumption. And sometimes it's a mix of the two.
It's important to appreciate that British people don't demand EU "things". They demand things where the cheapest supply is from the EU.
Take wine. If we left the EU and entered into a free trade agreement with Australia/NZ, the chances are that Brits would drink almost exactly the same amount of wine as before, it's just that the changing tariffs would mean that we bought less French wine, and more Australian. Our trade balance wouldn't change, unless we either (a) started producing more wine (which would of course mean diverting agricultural land from other uses, probably netting us back at zero), or (b) drank less wine.
I am shocked, nay appalled, that you regard French and Australian wines as substitutable goods
Given his time in California the one thing I'm glad about is that he still doesn't find Californian wine acceptable...
But no Rory really didn't look prime ministerial last night.
He'll know that too though. I have a lot of time for Mr Stewart, but he's a little overly fond of his own view. When Rory knows whathe's talking about he's really very right. He knows little of much though, and I'm sure he's learned that tonight.
Didn't he say that was his weakness in the first debate?
I tried to explain my musings earlier in a reply to JJ.
The data shows that the UK trade deficit is primarily about trade with the EU and that this is a deficit which has greatly increased during the last two decades.
Perhaps that means that because of the faults and failings of the UK economy / UK society generally / UK politicians that we are fundamentally unsuited to being in a single market with countries which do not have the same problems.
If you look at countries around the world, trade deficits are a function of household savings rates. High household savings rate (Germany, Switzerland or Singapore) -> trade surplus. Low household savings rate (UK or US) -> trade deficit.
Countries which have gone from trade deficit to surplus (like Spain), have done so largely through increasing household savings rates. Sometimes this is done by increasing exports and the surplus not being spent. Sometimes it is done by suppressing consumption. And sometimes it's a mix of the two.
It's important to appreciate that British people don't demand EU "things". They demand things where the cheapest supply is from the EU.
Take wine. If we left the EU and entered into a free trade agreement with Australia/NZ, the chances are that Brits would drink almost exactly the same amount of wine as before, it's just that the changing tariffs would mean that we bought less French wine, and more Australian. Our trade balance wouldn't change, unless we either (a) started producing more wine (which would of course mean diverting agricultural land from other uses, probably netting us back at zero), or (b) drank less wine.
I am shocked, nay appalled, that you regard French and Australian wines as substitutable goods
The contest will be much duller with the telling questions Rory raised left unanswered. Will Javid now pull out ? .. if so the bun fight between Hunt and Gove will be ferocious.
Comments
(Sorry, couldn't resist it...
If the debate had an effect, the questioners being dubious (at least in part) is even more serious.
[For what it's worth, I don't think that made a material difference, but I do think it's another black mark against debates generally].
Boris +17
Hunt +8
Gove +10
Javid +5
Rory -10
Raab -30
Boris +29
Hunt +11
Gove +14
Javid +15
Rory +8
Raab -27
Hancock -20
Leadsom -11
Harper -10
McVey -9
Gove vs Hunt to scoop up the stop Boris MPs.
Johnson has such a surplus that he is able to (and is) manipulating the contest in a big way.
Knock out Raab, then Stewart. Javid goes next. In the final 3 gerrymander Hunt above Gove.
Johnson vs Hunt.
Virtual certainty.
But no Rory really didn't look prime ministerial last night.
Gove and his wife can also out smart Boris on this front, he is biding his time and will only strike for second place tomorrow
BJ is pulling the strings.
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, everyone.
If Boris' lot really are tactically voting then they might try and engineer Hunt as the opponent.
They might like his ideas and they may want more discussion on some issues but Rory really didn't look like a party leader in a GE campaign.
Indeed. Australian is much better.
nEW tHREAD
The contest will be much duller with the telling questions Rory raised left unanswered. Will Javid now pull out ? .. if so the bun fight between Hunt and Gove will be ferocious.
fallen off the stool