Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend.
His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win.
This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
In which case who would he help, Trump or (say) Warren?
I finally worked it out last night. More than anything it is the sheer banality of Corbyn that hits you most. Beyond the slogans, the relentless anti-Semitism, the kneejerk anti-Westernism and the Bennite nostalgia there is simply nothing there. He is a profoundly incurious, unintelligent man.
That was one of the first defects I noticed in him, I guess around when he was advocating reopening the coal mines. He's just not interested. And someone who isn't interested isn't interesting.
I wake up to find Mister Tyndall thinks David Frost and Andrew Neil’s interview technique is exactly the same.
😂😂😂😂😂🙃😂🙃🙃🙃
One interview technique is let the victim speak to tease out the big answer versus don’t let the victim speak so you can claim in last word: everyone can see for themselves you didn’t answer!
Don’t go round Richards house for cheese! 😀.
The nearest thing we have to Frost today is Sophie Ridge.
Surely that's just because boomers are the most hardworking and talented generation that has ever graced God's earth, and they totally deserve to own everything while also deciding everything. Personally, I think we should be grateful that our rent pays for their cruises.
It’s simply the affect of the previous generation living longer than the generation before that. We’ll have more concurrent generations sharing the same resources.
It's not "simply" that, at all. Partly, it's that. Partly, it's the concentration of property ownership, the growth of the landlord class, and the plummet in the proportion of younger people owning their homes. Partly its the inflation in all asset prices due to QE, unaccompanied by general inflation (and hence outpacing wage rises). Partly it's the employer-funded pension plans (particularly but not only DB) that the older generation have. Partly it's the protection of benefits for older people, due to the political pressure this expanding cohort can deploy, while younger people have suffered the brunt of austerity. Etc. Your factor is probably the least significant of these.
I think Bloomberg only has a chance if there's no clear winner out of the first four states, or maybe if Sanders/Warren has a precarious-looking lead. If Biden or Buttigieg noses out of the pack then I think they run away with it on Super Tuesday. If Warren gets past 60% somehow across the four then I think she also runs away with it. The idea that the two presidential candidates could have swapped parties in the past is bizarre. I can't imagine it ever happening here. Seems like it reinforces the preconception that the US has two parties occupying a very narrow range of what Europeans would view as the available political spectrum.
Johnson has yet to commit to an Andrew Neil interview.He has also decided not to take part in some debates. is this the sort of cowardly character we need as a Prime Minister?
Johnson has much to hide but he needs to swiftly come clean on many of his skeletons otherwise the last two weeks could be very nasty indeed.
I think you have pinpointed Jezza's weakness. I don't think he's anti-Semitic as much as pro-Palestinian. And like all fanatics, he doesn't see shades of grey. If they disagree with him, they must be evil.
I wonder if Johnson can somehow be worse than Corbyn? Will he say “get Brexit done” to every answer?
The NHS privatisation thing is far too easy to defend from Johnson's perspective. "US firms will only be allowed access at current market rates. We won't actively pay them more than that." Where he's soft is on why we should trust him to get Brexit done this time when he failed so miserably before. And on personal trust. And his record as Foreign Sec. And...
Some suggestions Johnson hasn’t confirmed whether he’ll do the AN interview .
because running away worked out so well last time?
I just wonder if AN / BBC would be willing to empty chair him. Coz AN asking the questions to an empty chair is different to just not turning up.
AN is a high earning unionist Brexiteer. He won't give Johnson too hard of time.
Yes he is, but I think Neil is professional enough, and vain enough to want to take down Johnson as well as Corbyn. Johnson could do himself less harm by sending a lacky, than blurting out his own bumbling gibberish. If I was Johnson, because the QT performance and the ITV debate where free from calamity, I would quit while I was ahead and sit out the BBC debate too. Accusations of running scared would be trivial compared to tripping up over Jennifer Arcuri and uncertainty over the number of his offspring.
Some suggestions Johnson hasn’t confirmed whether he’ll do the AN interview .
because running away worked out so well last time?
I just wonder if AN / BBC would be willing to empty chair him. Coz AN asking the questions to an empty chair is different to just not turning up.
AN is a high earning unionist Brexiteer. He won't give Johnson too hard of time.
Yes he is, but I think Neil is professional enough, and vain enough to want to take down Johnson as well as Corbyn. Johnson could do himself less harm by sending a lacky, than blurting out his own bumbling gibberish. If I was Johnson, because the QT performance and the ITV debate where free from calamity, I would quit while I was ahead and sit out the BBC debate too. Accusations of running scared would be trivial compared to tripping up over Jennifer Arcuri and uncertainty over the number of his offspring.
Ducking out AFTER the others have had a go and you're running scared is a LOT worse than refusing to take part in the first place. It could quickly become the meme of the campaign and reignite all the bad stories swilling around about Bozo's part.
Johnson has yet to commit to an Andrew Neil interview.He has also decided not to take part in some debates. is this the sort of cowardly character we need as a Prime Minister?
Johnson has much to hide but he needs to swiftly come clean on many of his skeletons otherwise the last two weeks could be very nasty indeed.
You have had a preview of Labour campaign plans for the next two weeks?
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
The age divide is much larger than it has ever been, so I can't make sense of your statement.
I am saying that historically previous generations trended Tory as they aged. I think that less likely for those born from the mid Seventies onwards. The economics in the tweet is part of the reason, social attitudes have a part too. It is why the Tories have not encouraged youngsters to register to vote, while other parties have.
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend. His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win. This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
I just don't see Bloomberg appealing to moderate Dems, because for them they just want to beat Trump, or moderate GOPers who may want to only beat Warren / Sanders. But I think he will appeal more to Never Trumpers, and that if he was on a stage with Trump and Warren / Sanders his presence benefits the Dems. If it was Trump, Biden, Bloomberg we may as well just nuke ourselves now...
Bloomberg would appeal to a lot of centrists who voted for Hillary but would not vote for Warren or Sanders in wealthy suburban areas, not just Never Trumper Republicans. For example areas like Orange County California which voted for Romney in 2012 but Hillary in 2016
And I think they care more about beating Trump and returning to normalcy than they do voting Bloomberg. But the WASPy GOP voters would probably care more about beating Warren or Sanders than voting Bloomberg. I just think it would lend a framing boost to the Dem candidate; two old billionaire New Yorkers versus whoever the Dems put up will allow the Dem to just go "these guys are basically the same, and the problem, they think they can just buy politics etc"
"That's not how it works. Government don't go to the bond markets and ask if they'd mind lending them £x, as you or I might do. If they issue bonds in exchange for shares, they do so at the current market rate. If the bond markets don't like it, they may choose not to buy the bonds and their price will decline, but in general bond traders are simply interested in whether the interest rate is competitive and the lender will continue to pay it. As you'll know, interest rates are currently incredibly low - in fact negative for Government borrowing."
More rubbish from Nick Palmer UK government debt is positive across the curve - month bills yield 70bps - the curve then inverts out to 6years where yields are lowest at 41bps currently, before steepening out to the 30y area which yields 121bps (40-50y bonds yield less but this mainly due to the value of convexity).
As a government bond analyst I find his idea as to how "traders" operate is naive at best.
I’m not a bond trader but my assumption is these bonds will be sub-market interest and will therefore trade below par with on that basis with a further discount to reflect credit risk
Let’s say they trade at 80-85. That’s a hefty capital loss for equity holders even though you are switching at nominal value
Given the owners I’d imagine this would end up in court for a long time
Some suggestions Johnson hasn’t confirmed whether he’ll do the AN interview .
because running away worked out so well last time?
I just wonder if AN / BBC would be willing to empty chair him. Coz AN asking the questions to an empty chair is different to just not turning up.
AN is a high earning unionist Brexiteer. He won't give Johnson too hard of time.
Yes he is, but I think Neil is professional enough, and vain enough to want to take down Johnson as well as Corbyn. Johnson could do himself less harm by sending a lacky, than blurting out his own bumbling gibberish. If I was Johnson, because the QT performance and the ITV debate where free from calamity, I would quit while I was ahead and sit out the BBC debate too. Accusations of running scared would be trivial compared to tripping up over Jennifer Arcuri and uncertainty over the number of his offspring.
Ducking out AFTER the others have had a go and you're running scared is a LOT worse than refusing to take part in the first place. It could quickly become the meme of the campaign and reignite all the bad stories swilling around about Bozo's part.
It would invite the reintroduction of the multiparty chicken, maybe a whole coop of them
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend. His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win. This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
I just don't see Bloomberg appealing to moderate Dems, because for them they just want to beat Trump, or moderate GOPers who may want to only beat Warren / Sanders. But I think he will appeal more to Never Trumpers, and that if he was on a stage with Trump and Warren / Sanders his presence benefits the Dems. If it was Trump, Biden, Bloomberg we may as well just nuke ourselves now...
Bloomberg would appeal to a lot of centrists who voted for Hillary but would not vote for Warren or Sanders in wealthy suburban areas, not just Never Trumper Republicans. For example areas like Orange County California which voted for Romney in 2012 but Hillary in 2016
OC is Never Trumpers not Democrats.
(You’ve got to remember that it was the core of Nixon and Reagan’s GOP powerbase and while it has shrunk back - they’ve lost Riverside and the Inland Empire - it’s still strong in the coastal districts)
Mr. Password, be fair. When you know you're right and your cause is virtuous, who needs to bother troubling themselves with thinking?
I wouldn't suggest that he necessarily needs to doubt the virtues of his cause - after all I'm generally on the same side of the political divide. But any fool knows that there's more than one way to skin a cat, or radically rebalance power and wealth in society, and I would expect some interest in different methods of feline flaying, their efficacy, amount of clean-up required, volume of yowls from the cat, number of RSPCA referrals, that sort of thing. From Corbyn the answer is always the same, the 1970s were the point at which all policy questions for all time had been answered.
Johnson has yet to commit to an Andrew Neil interview.He has also decided not to take part in some debates. is this the sort of cowardly character we need as a Prime Minister?
Johnson has much to hide but he needs to swiftly come clean on many of his skeletons otherwise the last two weeks could be very nasty indeed.
Some suggestions Johnson hasn’t confirmed whether he’ll do the AN interview .
because running away worked out so well last time?
I just wonder if AN / BBC would be willing to empty chair him. Coz AN asking the questions to an empty chair is different to just not turning up.
AN is a high earning unionist Brexiteer. He won't give Johnson too hard of time.
Yes he is, but I think Neil is professional enough, and vain enough to want to take down Johnson as well as Corbyn. Johnson could do himself less harm by sending a lacky, than blurting out his own bumbling gibberish. If I was Johnson, because the QT performance and the ITV debate where free from calamity, I would quit while I was ahead and sit out the BBC debate too. Accusations of running scared would be trivial compared to tripping up over Jennifer Arcuri and uncertainty over the number of his offspring.
Ducking out AFTER the others have had a go and you're running scared is a LOT worse than refusing to take part in the first place. It could quickly become the meme of the campaign and reignite all the bad stories swilling around about Bozo's part.
If he can't handle the scrutiny up close, he is better off avoiding it.
Some suggestions Johnson hasn’t confirmed whether he’ll do the AN interview .
because running away worked out so well last time?
I just wonder if AN / BBC would be willing to empty chair him. Coz AN asking the questions to an empty chair is different to just not turning up.
AN is a high earning unionist Brexiteer. He won't give Johnson too hard of time.
Yes he is, but I think Neil is professional enough, and vain enough to want to take down Johnson as well as Corbyn. Johnson could do himself less harm by sending a lacky, than blurting out his own bumbling gibberish. If I was Johnson, because the QT performance and the ITV debate where free from calamity, I would quit while I was ahead and sit out the BBC debate too. Accusations of running scared would be trivial compared to tripping up over Jennifer Arcuri and uncertainty over the number of his offspring.
Ducking out AFTER the others have had a go and you're running scared is a LOT worse than refusing to take part in the first place. It could quickly become the meme of the campaign and reignite all the bad stories swilling around about Bozo's part.
If he can't handle the scrutiny up close, he is better off avoiding it.
What a comment on the leading candidate for PM that we're even considering such a possibility.
My question was regarding the Euro. It is the intention of an independent SNP led Scotland to rejoin the EU, and it might be a condition of membership.
Given that an independent Scotland will need a currency they are possibly better off picking the Euro from day zero rather than keeping Sterling.
The more interesting question (albeit one too complex for a modern day TV debate) is how does a high borrowing country implement the tight fiscal rules not having their own currency will force upon them. And that is true of an independent Scotland using either Sterling or the Euro.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
Five years old but worth reading. Explains the shades of grey that many wrestle with but few on here understand.
Some suggestions Johnson hasn’t confirmed whether he’ll do the AN interview .
because running away worked out so well last time?
I just wonder if AN / BBC would be willing to empty chair him. Coz AN asking the questions to an empty chair is different to just not turning up.
AN is a high earning unionist Brexiteer. He won't give Johnson too hard of time.
Yes he is, but I think Neil is professional enough, and vain enough to want to take down Johnson as well as Corbyn. Johnson could do himself less harm by sending a lacky, than blurting out his own bumbling gibberish. If I was Johnson, because the QT performance and the ITV debate where free from calamity, I would quit while I was ahead and sit out the BBC debate too. Accusations of running scared would be trivial compared to tripping up over Jennifer Arcuri and uncertainty over the number of his offspring.
Ducking out AFTER the others have had a go and you're running scared is a LOT worse than refusing to take part in the first place. It could quickly become the meme of the campaign and reignite all the bad stories swilling around about Bozo's part.
If he can't handle the scrutiny up close, he is better off avoiding it.
What a comment on the leading candidate for PM that we're even considering such a possibility.
I haven’t seen any Johnson supporters or Tories suggest it?
I mean it's pretty obviously a lie to say every taxpayer would be hit with a £2,400 bill.
It's the £350m figure all over again. Yes, it's bollocks, but the Tories would be quite happy for Full Fact to correct them and explain what Labour's policy on the marriage tax allowance would mean.
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
Wrong current polls show the Tories leading with 40s to 50s, 40 being the age most people now own a home
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
My question was regarding the Euro. It is the intention of an independent SNP led Scotland to rejoin the EU, and it might be a condition of membership.
And it might not. Twisting itself in circles over events that the likely winners of the GE says it will not even allow Scotland to decide upon would be a grievous waste of effort for the SNP at the moment. As it happens I wouldn't have much objection to joining the Euro but the chances of that option getting a fair hearing are between nada & f.a.
In my Hampshire constituency I’ve seen a surprising number of Lib Dem signs up. This area has always been solid Tory and I’ve never seen Lib Dem posters before. Interesting.
"That's not how it works. Government don't go to the bond markets and ask if they'd mind lending them £x, as you or I might do. If they issue bonds in exchange for shares, they do so at the current market rate. If the bond markets don't like it, they may choose not to buy the bonds and their price will decline, but in general bond traders are simply interested in whether the interest rate is competitive and the lender will continue to pay it. As you'll know, interest rates are currently incredibly low - in fact negative for Government borrowing."
More rubbish from Nick Palmer UK government debt is positive across the curve - month bills yield 70bps - the curve then inverts out to 6years where yields are lowest at 41bps currently, before steepening out to the 30y area which yields 121bps (40-50y bonds yield less but this mainly due to the value of convexity).
As a government bond analyst I find his idea as to how "traders" operate is naive at best.
Nick was obviously factually incorrect when he said that interest rates are negative for Government borrowing (unless he was envisaging borrowing in Euros).
More importantly though, although there's some validity to his point that - providing the exchange of equity for bonds is done at fair value - it's essentially a neutral action for both investors and the firm and there's no reason that investors should refuse, this destroys the whole object of he exercise. Assuming the bonds are rolled over in perpetuity then a fair value swap of equity for bonds would require the coupons on the bonds to be equal to the dividends foregone (adjusted for risk and dividend growth prospects). Given that the main purpose of the privatisation as advertised by the Labour party is to free up money currently going to shareholders in order to fund necessary investment this simply doesn't work. You can't use the profits both to compensate shareholders and fund future investment. They'll have to choose one or the other.
Some suggestions Johnson hasn’t confirmed whether he’ll do the AN interview .
because running away worked out so well last time?
I just wonder if AN / BBC would be willing to empty chair him. Coz AN asking the questions to an empty chair is different to just not turning up.
AN is a high earning unionist Brexiteer. He won't give Johnson too hard of time.
Yes he is, but I think Neil is professional enough, and vain enough to want to take down Johnson as well as Corbyn. Johnson could do himself less harm by sending a lacky, than blurting out his own bumbling gibberish. If I was Johnson, because the QT performance and the ITV debate where free from calamity, I would quit while I was ahead and sit out the BBC debate too. Accusations of running scared would be trivial compared to tripping up over Jennifer Arcuri and uncertainty over the number of his offspring.
Ducking out AFTER the others have had a go and you're running scared is a LOT worse than refusing to take part in the first place. It could quickly become the meme of the campaign and reignite all the bad stories swilling around about Bozo's part.
If he can't handle the scrutiny up close, he is better off avoiding it.
What a comment on the leading candidate for PM that we're even considering such a possibility.
I haven’t seen any Johnson supporters or Tories suggest it?
I have not heard he will not attend and I have no doubt he will take it head on
He will have problems without doubt but if he ducked the interview that would not be acceptable
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
Wrong current polls show the Tories leading with 40s to 50s, 40 being the age most people now own a home
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
I think both main parties still have the potential to win a majority but we are more polarised as a country, certainly, and that is lending itself to closer results. There will be no Tory landslide at this election. When they do eventually lose power (if they squeeze through this) there is going to be a big question about their electoral coalition moving forwards.
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
The age divide is much larger than it has ever been, so I can't make sense of your statement.
I am saying that historically previous generations trended Tory as they aged. I think that less likely for those born from the mid Seventies onwards. The economics in the tweet is part of the reason, social attitudes have a part too. It is why the Tories have not encouraged youngsters to register to vote, while other parties have.
The cohort a bit older than that have trended Tory massively as they've passed age 65, such that the difference between the Tory lead in the 65+ age group, and the general population, is now much larger than it has ever been. On the face of it that suggests that the rate at which people become Tory as they age is even greater than in the past.
Still not received a labour leaflet yet (Bassetlaw). N E Derbyshire - 2nd Rowley billboard up in Killamarsh, from someone who is a Brexit/UKIP/Tory swing voter judging by his social media posts. No Labour signs seen.
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend. His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win. This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
I just don't see Bloomberg appealing to moderate Dems, because for them they just want to beat Trump, or moderate GOPers who may want to only beat Warren / Sanders. But I think he will appeal more to Never Trumpers, and that if he was on a stage with Trump and Warren / Sanders his presence benefits the Dems. If it was Trump, Biden, Bloomberg we may as well just nuke ourselves now...
Bloomberg would appeal to a lot of centrists who voted for Hillary but would not vote for Warren or Sanders in wealthy suburban areas, not just Never Trumper Republicans. For example areas like Orange County California which voted for Romney in 2012 but Hillary in 2016
OC is Never Trumpers not Democrats.
(You’ve got to remember that it was the core of Nixon and Reagan’s GOP powerbase and while it has shrunk back - they’ve lost Riverside and the Inland Empire - it’s still strong in the coastal districts)
OC voted for Hillary, so if it voted for Bloomberg that is a loss for the Democrats
"That's not how it works. Government don't go to the bond markets and ask if they'd mind lending them £x, as you or I might do. If they issue bonds in exchange for shares, they do so at the current market rate. If the bond markets don't like it, they may choose not to buy the bonds and their price will decline, but in general bond traders are simply interested in whether the interest rate is competitive and the lender will continue to pay it. As you'll know, interest rates are currently incredibly low - in fact negative for Government borrowing."
More rubbish from Nick Palmer UK government debt is positive across the curve - month bills yield 70bps - the curve then inverts out to 6years where yields are lowest at 41bps currently, before steepening out to the 30y area which yields 121bps (40-50y bonds yield less but this mainly due to the value of convexity).
As a government bond analyst I find his idea as to how "traders" operate is naive at best.
I’m not a bond trader but my assumption is these bonds will be sub-market interest and will therefore trade below par with on that basis with a further discount to reflect credit risk
Let’s say they trade at 80-85. That’s a hefty capital loss for equity holders even though you are switching at nominal value
Given the owners I’d imagine this would end up in court for a long time
Surely the bonds would be exchanged for equity at market value, just as they are exchanged for cash at market value in a regular auction. They wouldn't be exchanged at par. If they were just regular bonds rather than some new category then the additional amount issued to fund any privatisation would be so small compared to the total stock of bonds outstanding that it's hard to imagine it would have any material impact on bond prices even if each shareholder immediately sold their bonds. The alternative would be for the government to pay cash for the shares, funded by additional bond issuance. A moment's thought shows that these two approaches are in fact functionally equivalent. Neither should invite any legal issues and the impact on bond prices will simply reflect the size of the overall level of borrowing relative to market demand. There is strong global demand for bonds issued by creditworthy borrowers, and so personally I do not anticipate a bondholders' strike.
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend. His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win. This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
I just don't see Bloomberg appealing to moderate Dems, because for them they just want to beat Trump, or moderate GOPers who may want to only beat Warren / Sanders. But I think he will appeal more to Never Trumpers, and that if he was on a stage with Trump and Warren / Sanders his presence benefits the Dems. If it was Trump, Biden, Bloomberg we may as well just nuke ourselves now...
Bloomberg would appeal to a lot of centrists who voted for Hillary but would not vote for Warren or Sanders in wealthy suburban areas, not just Never Trumper Republicans. For example areas like Orange County California which voted for Romney in 2012 but Hillary in 2016
And I think they care more about beating Trump and returning to normalcy than they do voting Bloomberg. But the WASPy GOP voters would probably care more about beating Warren or Sanders than voting Bloomberg. I just think it would lend a framing boost to the Dem candidate; two old billionaire New Yorkers versus whoever the Dems put up will allow the Dem to just go "these guys are basically the same, and the problem, they think they can just buy politics etc"
Trump's base will not vote for Bloomberg nor will Sanders, suburban centrist voters might
Still not received a labour leaflet yet (Bassetlaw). N E Derbyshire - 2nd Rowley billboard up in Killamarsh, from someone who is a Brexit/UKIP/Tory swing voter judging by his social media posts. No Labour signs seen.
I haven't seen any poster or evidence a GE is taking place anywhere I have been throughout Colwyn Bay and Llandudno
"That's not how it works. Government don't go to the bond markets and ask if they'd mind lending them £x, as you or I might do. If they issue bonds in exchange for shares, they do so at the current market rate. If the bond markets don't like it, they may choose not to buy the bonds and their price will decline, but in general bond traders are simply interested in whether the interest rate is competitive and the lender will continue to pay it. As you'll know, interest rates are currently incredibly low - in fact negative for Government borrowing."
More rubbish from Nick Palmer UK government debt is positive across the curve - month bills yield 70bps - the curve then inverts out to 6years where yields are lowest at 41bps currently, before steepening out to the 30y area which yields 121bps (40-50y bonds yield less but this mainly due to the value of convexity).
As a government bond analyst I find his idea as to how "traders" operate is naive at best.
Nick was obviously factually incorrect when he said that interest rates are negative for Government borrowing (unless he was envisaging borrowing in Euros).
More importantly though, although there's some validity to his point that - providing the exchange of equity for bonds is done at fair value - it's essentially a neutral action for both investors and the firm and there's no reason that investors should refuse, this destroys the whole object of he exercise. Assuming the bonds are rolled over in perpetuity then a fair value swap of equity for bonds would require the coupons on the bonds to be equal to the dividends foregone (adjusted for risk and dividend growth prospects). Given that the main purpose of the privatisation as advertised by the Labour party is to free up money currently going to shareholders in order to fund necessary investment this simply doesn't work. You can't use the profits both to compensate shareholders and fund future investment. They'll have to choose one or the other.
But it won't be at fair value because it is baked in to the whole scheme that the value of the equity will have fallen by 75%+ by the time the swap is made, because the swap is about to be made.
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend. His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win. This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
I just don't see Bloomberg appealing to moderate Dems, because for them they just want to beat Trump, or moderate GOPers who may want to only beat Warren / Sanders. But I think he will appeal more to Never Trumpers, and that if he was on a stage with Trump and Warren / Sanders his presence benefits the Dems. If it was Trump, Biden, Bloomberg we may as well just nuke ourselves now...
Bloomberg would appeal to a lot of centrists who voted for Hillary but would not vote for Warren or Sanders in wealthy suburban areas, not just Never Trumper Republicans. For example areas like Orange County California which voted for Romney in 2012 but Hillary in 2016
And I think they care more about beating Trump and returning to normalcy than they do voting Bloomberg. But the WASPy GOP voters would probably care more about beating Warren or Sanders than voting Bloomberg. I just think it would lend a framing boost to the Dem candidate; two old billionaire New Yorkers versus whoever the Dems put up will allow the Dem to just go "these guys are basically the same, and the problem, they think they can just buy politics etc"
Trump's base will not vote for Bloomberg nor will Sanders, suburban centrist voters might
A whole shit load of Romney voters voted for Trump.
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
I think both main parties still have the potential to win a majority but we are more polarised as a country, certainly, and that is lending itself to closer results. There will be no Tory landslide at this election. When they do eventually lose power (if they squeeze through this) there is going to be a big question about their electoral coalition moving forwards.
But I see lots of commentators and people go "well without Corbyn Labour would be trouncing this shower of a Tory party" whereas no one blamed Cameron for not really thrashing Brown's Labour, nobody questioned him for only gaining a very thin majority (granted, the conventional wisdom was another hung parliament), and whilst people berated May about losing that majority it was seen more as a personal failure (which makes sense given her dire performance) and less of a Tory brand issue. I just wonder if there is a feeling specific to the last 2 generations that makes Conservatives winning large majorities really difficult.
I'd forgotten Maureen Lipman had dumped Labour in Ed's time. The only surprising thing about her being against Corbolab is that anyone's surprised (though I realise BJers have to affect amazement for base political purposes).
If anyone hasn't yet laid Michelle Obama, she's headed down to 55/90 for the nomination for god only knows why as a reason - which is below what I laid her at a while back (130s)
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend. His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win. This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
I just don't see Bloomberg appealing to moderate Dems, because for them they just want to beat Trump, or moderate GOPers who may want to only beat Warren / Sanders. But I think he will appeal more to Never Trumpers, and that if he was on a stage with Trump and Warren / Sanders his presence benefits the Dems. If it was Trump, Biden, Bloomberg we may as well just nuke ourselves now...
Bloomberg would appeal to a lot of centrists who voted for Hillary but would not vote for Warren or Sanders in wealthy suburban areas, not just Never Trumper Republicans. For example areas like Orange County California which voted for Romney in 2012 but Hillary in 2016
OC is Never Trumpers not Democrats.
(You’ve got to remember that it was the core of Nixon and Reagan’s GOP powerbase and while it has shrunk back - they’ve lost Riverside and the Inland Empire - it’s still strong in the coastal districts)
OC voted for Hillary, so if it voted for Bloomberg that is a loss for the Democrats
But what does that matter on the Electoral College, Dems still win California no matter what. What is the effect of Bloomberg on Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan etc? I would argue he makes it easier for the Democrat to go "here are two billionaires trying to buy their way into politics, I'm with you, I'm for you, vote Dem". Florida probably still goes Trump because it is weird as hell, but the rust belt might be more willing to distrust Trump when it is tied to distrust in Bloomberg. For example, one of Bloombergs big positions is that he is so rich he is uncorruptable. Trump made the same argument in 2016. Tump has to say that isn't true in Bloombergs case, opening himself up for the same criticism, whilst Dems can just turn to Trumps record of self dealing and paint the both with the same brush. Especially if Warren / Sanders are the nominee, it will be very difficult for Bloomberg and the Dem nominee to be lumped together, even if he is running in their primary.
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
Wrong current polls show the Tories leading with 40s to 50s, 40 being the age most people now own a home
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
At the 1987 GE the Tory lead in 65+ voters was only 3pp higher than in the electorate as a whole. In the latest ICM that gap is now 45pp. Doesn't this suggest that, far from breaking down under Thatcher, it has been turbocharged by some other effect since? See the data here https://www.datawrapper.de/_/UJvt4/
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend. His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win. This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
I just don't see Bloomberg appealing to moderate Dems, because for them they just want to beat Trump, or moderate GOPers who may want to only beat Warren / Sanders. But I think he will appeal more to Never Trumpers, and that if he was on a stage with Trump and Warren / Sanders his presence benefits the Dems. If it was Trump, Biden, Bloomberg we may as well just nuke ourselves now...
Bloomberg would appeal to a lot of centrists who voted for Hillary but would not vote for Warren or Sanders in wealthy suburban areas, not just Never Trumper Republicans. For example areas like Orange County California which voted for Romney in 2012 but Hillary in 2016
OC is Never Trumpers not Democrats.
(You’ve got to remember that it was the core of Nixon and Reagan’s GOP powerbase and while it has shrunk back - they’ve lost Riverside and the Inland Empire - it’s still strong in the coastal districts)
OC voted for Hillary, so if it voted for Bloomberg that is a loss for the Democrats
But what does that matter on the Electoral College, Dems still win California no matter what. What is the effect of Bloomberg on Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan etc? I would argue he makes it easier for the Democrat to go "here are two billionaires trying to buy their way into politics, I'm with you, I'm for you, vote Dem". Florida probably still goes Trump because it is weird as hell, but the rust belt might be more willing to distrust Trump when it is tied to distrust in Bloomberg.
The rustbelt Bloomberg will make zero difference except maybe a fraction in the suburbs, he might pick up some centrist Jewish Democrats in Florida
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
The age divide is much larger than it has ever been, so I can't make sense of your statement.
I am saying that historically previous generations trended Tory as they aged. I think that less likely for those born from the mid Seventies onwards. The economics in the tweet is part of the reason, social attitudes have a part too. It is why the Tories have not encouraged youngsters to register to vote, while other parties have.
The cohort a bit older than that have trended Tory massively as they've passed age 65, such that the difference between the Tory lead in the 65+ age group, and the general population, is now much larger than it has ever been. On the face of it that suggests that the rate at which people become Tory as they age is even greater than in the past.
There’s a link (which I think Alastair might have spotted) here between some older women’s dislike/distrust of Boris Johnson, and the policy to pledge the WASPI bung.
Labour is trying to exploit that by inserting a crowbar into that crack, and levering it open.
At the £58 billion expense of destroying their offering to everybody else. A late pledge by Boris to cut the 6% tax rate on student loans would more than counter it. Not just with the young going to uni, but with their parents too.
They should be cut to about £5,000 a year over the Parliament. That would mean a 4-year degree cost a max of £20k, which is reasonable. Weddings and honeymoons cost about that and are accepted. The Government should also pledge to part refund medical degree fees and dentistry, perhaps architects too. I’d also cut the interest rate to RPI or CPI.
That would be seen as fair. It would also cost about £9-£10bn extra a year but the NI cut costs even more than that and, as a new stable post Brexit settlement takes effect, should be affordable in the longer term
It would also show the Tories listen and are also on young people’s side.
Given that the ONS is dumping that much student bad debt on the government borrowing each year it wouldn't actually cost anything.
But Conservative politicians are in denial of the student debt issue.
3 million watched The Andrew Neil Interview with @jeremycorbyn last night on BBC1. #GE2019
Vast majority of those 3m will already have made up their minds one way or another, IMO.
However the media narrative this morning is larger than normal for these interviews so there may be a bit of cut through with "floaters"
Re. Boris and Andrew Neil. Remember Boris already faced Neil back in the Summer when he was contesting the Con leadership. Made no difference to the outcome of the Conservative leadership election.
Andrew Neil may think this general election is all about him being able to treat party leaders like they're a piece of shit but at the end of the day its the voters that get the final say...
Having AN interview Boris after Jezza is starting to look like a masterstroke by the Tories. Rightly or wrongly, Jezza's effort is being proclaimed as the most disastrous political interview in global history. Boris now only has to keep his end up (or for it to be successfully spun that he has) for him to appear a giant.
Johnson has yet to commit to an Andrew Neil interview.He has also decided not to take part in some debates. is this the sort of cowardly character we need as a Prime Minister?
Johnson has much to hide but he needs to swiftly come clean on many of his skeletons otherwise the last two weeks could be very nasty indeed.
The kind of person who chooses his battles wisely and isn’t forced into traps is exactly the character we need. Only the over engaged would notice if he didn’t grant Neil an interview, I think he should swerve a la David Cameron
3 million watched The Andrew Neil Interview with @jeremycorbyn last night on BBC1. #GE2019
Vast majority of those 3m will already have made up their minds one way or another, IMO.
However the media narrative this morning is larger than normal for these interviews so there may be a bit of cut through with "floaters"
Re. Boris and Andrew Neil. Remember Boris already faced Neil back in the Summer when he was contesting the Con leadership. Made no difference to the outcome of the Conservative leadership election.
Andrew Neil may think this general election is all about him being able to treat party leaders like they're a piece of shit but at the end of the day its the voters that get the final say...
I agree but Neil is the best political interviewer in the country bar none
Having AN interview Boris after Jezza is starting to look like a masterstroke by the Tories. Rightly or wrongly, Jezza's effort is being proclaimed as the most disastrous political interview in global history. Boris now only has to keep his end up (or for it to be successfully spun that he has) for him to appear a giant.
My question was regarding the Euro. It is the intention of an independent SNP led Scotland to rejoin the EU, and it might be a condition of membership.
And it might not. Twisting itself in circles over events that the likely winners of the GE says it will not even allow Scotland to decide upon would be a grievous waste of effort for the SNP at the moment. As it happens I wouldn't have much objection to joining the Euro but the chances of that option getting a fair hearing are between nada & f.a.
It wasn't intended as a gotcha question - I'm genuinely interested in the answer. While I'm in favour of retaining the union, I'm not an absolutist on the issue, and if there is a popular will for independence (which for now is not at all clear), then it will happen. I can understand the reluctance to trade in hypotheticals, but it's a pretty key issue for the future of any independent Scotland.
3 million watched The Andrew Neil Interview with @jeremycorbyn last night on BBC1. #GE2019
Vast majority of those 3m will already have made up their minds one way or another, IMO.
However the media narrative this morning is larger than normal for these interviews so there may be a bit of cut through with "floaters"
Re. Boris and Andrew Neil. Remember Boris already faced Neil back in the Summer when he was contesting the Con leadership. Made no difference to the outcome of the Conservative leadership election.
Andrew Neil may think this general election is all about him being able to treat party leaders like they're a piece of shit but at the end of the day its the voters that get the final say...
I agree but Neil is the best political interviewer in the country bar none
I'm not a fan of the Neil/Paxman approach. I've always felt a more "subtle" interview style is better for both interviewer and the interviewee but appreciate I'm in the minority there.
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
Wrong current polls show the Tories leading with 40s to 50s, 40 being the age most people now own a home
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
Housing affordability is important.
The young will not become more Conservative as they age if they don't own their own home.
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
The age divide is much larger than it has ever been, so I can't make sense of your statement.
I am saying that historically previous generations trended Tory as they aged. I think that less likely for those born from the mid Seventies onwards. The economics in the tweet is part of the reason, social attitudes have a part too. It is why the Tories have not encouraged youngsters to register to vote, while other parties have.
The cohort a bit older than that have trended Tory massively as they've passed age 65, such that the difference between the Tory lead in the 65+ age group, and the general population, is now much larger than it has ever been. On the face of it that suggests that the rate at which people become Tory as they age is even greater than in the past.
Certainly that is true of the boomer cohort, but will it be true for Gen X and Millenials? I think we are looking at a cohort effect, not an age effect.
I'd forgotten Maureen Lipman had dumped Labour in Ed's time. The only surprising thing about her being against Corbolab is that anyone's surprised (though I realise BJers have to affect amazement for base political purposes).
An interesting stat (if true) in the Speccie piece is that most of the Jewish vote had deserted Labour under Miliband. That surprised me. I thought that until Corbyn they were mainly pro Labour. On the Labour antisemitism issue generally, it's a really tricky one to defend against. A person might take the view that it is being overblown for a variety of reasons, some complex, some basic, some respectable, some less so, but they must argue that view very carefully and precisely, assuming they are up for it in the first place, otherwise they risk laying themselves open to charges of being antisemitic themselves. Maureen Lipman? Well, perhaps it's the BT nationalization that's her real problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEfKEzX9QLE
Finally watched the Corbyn-Neil interview. Of course I think he cane across shiftily, but i suspect both sides will be able to mine for social media clips so probably a score draw.
However what interests me is this:
Neil asked is the phrase “Rothschild Zionists rule Israel and the world” anti Semitic or not?
Corbyn didn’t and wouldn’t give a straight answer.
A simple yes would have closed it down
The only reason why I can think he wouldn’t have done that is he was aware/afraid that Neil had evidence that a friend/ally of Corbyn’s had said that (it turned out to be someone called Liam Moore who I’ve never heard of)
Can anyone else explain why Corbyn wouldn’t answer this question? It looked terrible.
I find the prevarication of this sort of thing puzzling from JC. He really doesn’t like commenting on specifics - on anti-semitism or otherwise (unless of course it’s rich people or Donald Trump).
Some of it is I think a clumsy way of trying to avoid a ‘gotchya’ moment but it doesn’t come across well at all. He should just say no, it’s unacceptable, I don’t want people who say that sort of thing in the Labour Party.”
The fact he doesn’t suggests underlying unease that there is more to come out of the woodwork, whether rightly or wrongly.
Yes, he should have just said it's anti-semitic. I suspect the reason is his hostility to Israeli policy in the occupied territories, and a reluctance to start going down a path where criticism of Israel is banned as being anti-semitic. But in this case the above statement isn't even close to being borderline, and it shouldn't really take even a moment's thought to say "yes of course it's anti-semitic"
It just shows what a rubbish political operator Corbyn is, and actually stupid too. It's a tragedy, because I think a fairly radical Labour leader without the baggage and the stupidity but instead with political smarts would be winning any general election against the current grotesque caricature of a Conservative party.
I suspect not a lot. It is why we don't really see people becoming more Tory with age like previous generations did.
Wrong current polls show the Tories leading with 40s to 50s, 40 being the age most people now own a home
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
Housing affordability is important.
The young will not become more Conservative as they age if they don't own their own home.
It has risen but by 34 over 50% own their own home, coincidentally 35 is the age voters now stop voting Labour with Tories leading with 35 to 54s
Wrong current polls show the Tories leading with 40s to 50s, 40 being the age most people now own a home
But Foxys argument seems to be that becoming older =/= becoming more likely to vote Tory, rather that the current crop of older people are more likely to vote Tory. So is the average 25-30 year old now, in 20 years, going to be likely to vote Tory at the same rate as current 45-50 year olds (as Foxy suggested would have been the case in the past), or has that trend broken? I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
Housing affordability is important.
The young will not become more Conservative as they age if they don't own their own home.
It has risen but by 34 over 50% own their own home, coincidentally 35 is the age voters now stop voting Labour with Tories leading with 35 to 54s
You might like to consider what home ownership levels are in areas which are trending towards the Conservatives and what they are in areas which are trending away from the Conservatives.
Comments
I know when my grandparents died while the money on our side went straight to us, it didn't on my uncle's side.
😂😂😂😂😂🙃😂🙃🙃🙃
One interview technique is let the victim speak to tease out the big answer versus don’t let the victim speak so you can claim in last word: everyone can see for themselves you didn’t answer!
Don’t go round Richards house for cheese! 😀.
The nearest thing we have to Frost today is Sophie Ridge.
Your factor is probably the least significant of these.
The idea that the two presidential candidates could have swapped parties in the past is bizarre. I can't imagine it ever happening here. Seems like it reinforces the preconception that the US has two parties occupying a very narrow range of what Europeans would view as the available political spectrum.
Johnson has much to hide but he needs to swiftly come clean on many of his skeletons otherwise the last two weeks could be very nasty indeed.
I think you have pinpointed Jezza's weakness. I don't think he's anti-Semitic as much as pro-Palestinian. And like all fanatics, he doesn't see shades of grey. If they disagree with him, they must be evil.
Where he's soft is on why we should trust him to get Brexit done this time when he failed so miserably before. And on personal trust. And his record as Foreign Sec. And...
Johnson could do himself less harm by sending a lacky, than blurting out his own bumbling gibberish.
If I was Johnson, because the QT performance and the ITV debate where free from calamity, I would quit while I was ahead and sit out the BBC debate too.
Accusations of running scared would be trivial compared to tripping up over Jennifer Arcuri and uncertainty over the number of his offspring.
It is why the Tories have not encouraged youngsters to register to vote, while other parties have.
Let’s say they trade at 80-85. That’s a hefty capital loss for equity holders even though you are switching at nominal value
Given the owners I’d imagine this would end up in court for a long time
(You’ve got to remember that it was the core of Nixon and Reagan’s GOP powerbase and while it has shrunk back - they’ve lost Riverside and the Inland Empire - it’s still strong in the coastal districts)
From Corbyn the answer is always the same, the 1970s were the point at which all policy questions for all time had been answered.
Andrew Neil will take him down bigtime imo
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11424528/Miriam-Margolyes-Look-nobody-likes-Jews....html
I'll see if I can find it.
Once you have lost all sense of where your money is coming from you can offer everything to everyone to buy an election
Hopefully voters are not so easily bought
Classic.
I was thinking about this during the PB Tory panic over some of the polling, but the Tory party have failed to win a lasting governing majority since Major, with the small blip of Cameron's majority not lasting and being overtaken by the Europe question. Did Thatcher break this age drift? Has something else happened that is making it near impossible for Tories to win a majority? I wonder if the Anyone But Conservative alliance is just too strong and that, as we see now, even unpopular parties with the voters will gain enough tactical votes once an election is called to keep Tories out of power. Is the base of each party enough that, if either side decides to vote tactically, we are now in an era of weak governments and the only response would be electoral reform and a more conciliatory approach to politics, with more emphasis on coalitions and common ground. With Labour losing Scotland they can't find a majority anywhere, and enough of the Wets seem happy voting for the LDs. The working class is shifting more Tory than the past, but I bet that will have a racial tinge to it, and therefore the working class that does still vote Labour will be more concentrated and therefore more efficient, whereas the white working class vote that the Tories get will be more spread thin, possibly just bolstering them in safe seats rather than winning Lab / LD seats...
More importantly though, although there's some validity to his point that - providing the exchange of equity for bonds is done at fair value - it's essentially a neutral action for both investors and the firm and there's no reason that investors should refuse, this destroys the whole object of he exercise. Assuming the bonds are rolled over in perpetuity then a fair value swap of equity for bonds would require the coupons on the bonds to be equal to the dividends foregone (adjusted for risk and dividend growth prospects). Given that the main purpose of the privatisation as advertised by the Labour party is to free up money currently going to shareholders in order to fund necessary investment this simply doesn't work. You can't use the profits both to compensate shareholders and fund future investment. They'll have to choose one or the other.
When you look at the candidates to be next FM, you begin to understand voting patterns in Scotland:
SNP - Nicola Sturgeon
SLab - Richard “Empty Kettle” Leonard
SLD - Angry Wullie
SCon - none
Probably bollocks imo
He will have problems without doubt but if he ducked the interview that would not be acceptable
N E Derbyshire - 2nd Rowley billboard up in Killamarsh, from someone who is a Brexit/UKIP/Tory swing voter judging by his social media posts. No Labour signs seen.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/how-ed-miliband-lost-the-jewish-vote/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/maureen-lipman-says-she-cant-vote-labour-while-ed-miliband-is-leader-9827294.html
The alternative would be for the government to pay cash for the shares, funded by additional bond issuance. A moment's thought shows that these two approaches are in fact functionally equivalent. Neither should invite any legal issues and the impact on bond prices will simply reflect the size of the overall level of borrowing relative to market demand. There is strong global demand for bonds issued by creditworthy borrowers, and so personally I do not anticipate a bondholders' strike.
It is extraordinary
See the data here https://www.datawrapper.de/_/UJvt4/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50543903
I understand viewing figures for Kay Burley morning Sky programme are only 70,000 and that surprised me
But Conservative politicians are in denial of the student debt issue.
However the media narrative this morning is larger than normal for these interviews so there may be a bit of cut through with "floaters"
Re. Boris and Andrew Neil. Remember Boris already faced Neil back in the Summer when he was contesting the Con leadership. Made no difference to the outcome of the Conservative leadership election.
Andrew Neil may think this general election is all about him being able to treat party leaders like they're a piece of shit but at the end of the day its the voters that get the final say...
I can understand the reluctance to trade in hypotheticals, but it's a pretty key issue for the future of any independent Scotland.
https://twitter.com/naebD/status/1199624923662168064?s=20
https://mobile.twitter.com/davieclegg/status/1199622704640475136
The young will not become more Conservative as they age if they don't own their own home.
He should get it over with pronto.
On the Labour antisemitism issue generally, it's a really tricky one to defend against. A person might take the view that it is being overblown for a variety of reasons, some complex, some basic, some respectable, some less so, but they must argue that view very carefully and precisely, assuming they are up for it in the first place, otherwise they risk laying themselves open to charges of being antisemitic themselves.
Maureen Lipman? Well, perhaps it's the BT nationalization that's her real problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEfKEzX9QLE
And a puppy. A puppy would be nice.
It just shows what a rubbish political operator Corbyn is, and actually stupid too. It's a tragedy, because I think a fairly radical Labour leader without the baggage and the stupidity but instead with political smarts would be winning any general election against the current grotesque caricature of a Conservative party.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/milestonesjourneyingintoadulthood/2019-02-18
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50543903
Says the uncensored docs leave Johnson's claims NHS not on the table in tatters.
Not a bad dead cat after last night.