This is just another shout out of the same story. What has change the polls is the give away, not this horseshit.
Also, anyone else seen Gary Badiner berating Beth Rigby?
It is doing the rounds on Twitter. There is literally no situation that he cannot make worse. Only Burgon can beat him on that front.
He was a senior lawyer. That can often have certain behavioural problems - an arrogance and belief in one’s own infallibility. Medical professionals are similar.
When political parties pull stunts like this 'big reveal' from Labour, they always grossly under estimate the public's ability to see through them. It's as though Corbyn's horror interview never happened, and as though Labour aren't trying to use this 'big reveal' to deflect attnetion from the interview that *never happened*.
The public have far more nouse than we give them credit for.
Even though it might be all horseshit, Tories in big trouble here.
One thing you have to say about Labour's campaign is, it might full of unafforable promises and lies, but they have something new every day and scattergunning a wide range of people who at very least would consider voting Labour.
Where as the Tories seem to have nothing to say most days.
The Tory lead will widen again on Saturday night. Mark my words.
Because? The Tories offer other being the only party to implement Brexit is very weak.
Don't get me wrong, I think the fundamentals are a lot weaker for Corbyn now than in 2017. I don't think a hung Parliament is at all likely, but the Tory campaign is giving its best shot at achieving one (social media aside).
So the logic of what you are suggesting seems to be if you want to avoid the risk of no deal you should vote Tory to ensure there is a majority government that can implement a deal?
Unless we revoke, or unless the EU is prepared to make significant changes to its own constitution, we will No Deal in Jan 2020, Dec 2020 or possibly Dec 2022. Trade agreements seem to take 7 years on average. We cannot negotiate one before the A50 process reaches its ultimate end with the maximum extendable transition period runs out in 2022. It looks like the EU never put serious thought into making the transition period last long enough to sort out a deal
Were I one of the civil servants named in these documents I’d be furious about having my name revealed without my permission and having my work being used/misused for party political reasons. It puts them at risk internally (leak inquiries/disciplinaries/messes up relationships with colleagues) and potentially externally. Very bad move by Labour.
Why do you think Labour gives a damn about whether civil servants are furious. The key is in the word “servant”. The expectation is, I would think, servility.
Whether that is wise is a different question.
It was already in the public domain as someone found the docs on reddit from a month ago. There are linked in profiles showing the people involved in the negotiations.
If there was an error in judgement here, and I agree it would have been better to redact the names, it is minor compared to the leaking of Kim Darrochs cables for example.
just home from a meeting, about to catch up but I gather Labour are - for the first time in election history - claiming the NHS is in danger under the Tories...
Even though it might be all horseshit, Tories in big trouble here.
One thing you have to say about Labour's campaign is, it might full of unafforable promises and lies, but they have something new every day and scattergunning a wide range of people who at very least would consider voting Labour.
Where as the Tories seem to have nothing to say most days.
The Tory lead will widen again on Saturday night. Mark my words.
Because? The Tories offer other being the only party to implement Brexit is very weak.
Because Corbyn is having a rubbish campaign.
Labour is having a solid campaign, but oddly individually they are having a poor one. I think it helps that they can promise so hugely.
What on earth is the problem with the US wanting to sell more drugs to the NHS? As long as the price is reasonable and the drugs are safe I couldn't care less whether drugs are from America, Germany, Japan and Timbuktu.
Jezza comes across as very old fashioned over of this IMO.
It's about current UK state controls on drug pricing. Opening the market up without removing state controls would put US suppliers at a disadvantage, which means the US will request that said controls are lifted. I haven't seen anything in these papers that addresses that logic - not at all.
No. We have a transition deal agreed. It is temporary. The real Deal has to be negotiated between January and July 2020 or else we No Deal on 1st Jan 2021. Since no one has ever completed a comprehensive Trade Deal in 6 months in the entire history of the world ever since the beginning of time.... well, you get the idea. No Deal beckons in 12 months (ish)
Nonsense. There are multiple ways to get a deal agreed in time. Firstly we are not starting from a blank slate. We are starting from a position of perfect alignment and from a position of our negotiators and their negotiators having been in conversation for years and having just struck a transition agreement. They likely already have a clear outline of what they are transitioning too as talks have been ongoing on that basis [which is why the Political Declaration had to be agreed[. Secondly an agreement does not need to be agreed in full in order to enter the deal. It is possible to transition from the transition into a different type of transition period until the deal is implemented in full. That's actually quite common under GATT rules [remember them?] - and with the 3 issues the EU were bothered about settled now they have no reason to stall or prevent an agreement on that basis.
Storm Sebastien will drench Britain again in next 24 hours with alerts over 109 floods after more than half a month's worth of rain fell in just one day.
If loads of people get flooded out, they are generally super pissed (for obvious reasons) and looking for somebody to blame.
The fact that the British Parliament was suspended by Her Majesty for five weeks at the request of the Prime Minister right before the next deadline makes this publication the last attempt to effectively counter the scenario of Britain leaving the EU without making a deal with Brussels.
From now on, it is no longer a secret who is pushing the UK government to no-deal Brexit:
USTR were also clear that the UK-EU situation would be determinative: there would be all to play for in a No Deal situation but UK commitment to the Customs Union and Single Market would make a UK-U.S. FTA a non-starter.
Document 6, page 2
Full document The most notable step towards the signing of the agreement, as expected, will be the UK rejection of EU sanitary and phytosanitary standards, which means that chlorinated chicken from American farmers can get to Britain by Christmas:
• The US are very concerned at the contents of the Chequers statement. They were "deflated" and see harmonisation with the EU SPS regime as the "worst-case scenario" for a UK-US FTA.
• The US see SPS as the biggest 'sticking point' on risk (what they see as the 'global norm') vs the EU's hazard-based approach on mainly pesticides, veterinary drugs and pathogen reduction treatments.
• On transparency and equivalence the UK not remaining in the EU but subject to the EU rules will be more of an issue for the US than the UK just being in the EU, as we can no longer be a back door for US products and no longer influence EU rules. An example the US shared would be if they (the US) lodged a complaint against the UK under the terms of the FTA, the UK would not have the autonomy to address the said complaint under the Chequers proposal.
British citizens will inevitably face a sharp decline in the quality of imported food products. The United States is strongly determined to expand markets thus placing UK in 'take it or leave it' position:
[Wine Agreement] The most challenging element was the discussion on traditional terms. The US do not want to accept our continuity approach, even for a no deal text. They described the position, whilst referring to the issues with the EU, as "the disease spreading". This may require political escalation. The UK will send over the latest Wine Agreement text following this call. We are about 90% agreed.
Document 5, page 51
Full document
Cornering the victim, the US is clearly not going to limit itself to ensuring its own interests solely within the UK:
Another priority for the Administration was dealing with common global problems, particularly China. The US had commenced an investigation on overcapacity of steel and aluminium vis-a-vis China, the outcome of which would be a standard through which to protect other industry (semiconductors, solar panels etc.). An important element of positive agendas with the UK and the EU would be shared action on China. On the Trade in Service Agreement (TISA) the Administration recognised the potential to come back to table, but no decision had been made to date.
Document 2, page 7
Full document
After reading the documents, there should be no doubt who is speaking in these negotiations from a position of strength and who is on the receiving end. The language and the tone in which negotiations are held sometimes give the impression that the second side of the process is not Great Britain, but a third world country:
e) The US is willing to offer the UK 2 spots of the 50 in the Central California tour for ACE 10
f) Anyone who attends must be able to provide something. "Move the needle or you don't get to come back"Document 3, page 15
Full document
What can we say about respect for the citizens of the Kingdom if in the new trading space they still have to prove their competence?
...in TTIP the US repeatedly said that they would like to recognise the UK's professions but they could not trust standards in all EU countries.
Even though it might be all horseshit, Tories in big trouble here.
One thing you have to say about Labour's campaign is, it might full of unafforable promises and lies, but they have something new every day and scattergunning a wide range of people who at very least would consider voting Labour.
Where as the Tories seem to have nothing to say most days.
Francis, I have to ask you this question. Do you actually wear a nappy? I ask because you seem to spend most of your time on here soiling yourself.
Agreed. Scrapping is the right thing to do, but politically very naïve.
Oddly, the Labour policies I like the most are the high principled and often revenue generating ones like this. Scrapping the married allowance. The tax rises on high earners and comapnies. The IHT reforms. The abortion change. The private schools stuff. I personally don't need to see money hosed at the NHS.
The United Kingdom will also be asked to reconsider their policy towards legal protection of personal data. Cooperation is out of the question while GDPR stands in the way of American corporations like Facebook and Google.
RT also explained that the US has had some specific concerns with how GDPR is being implemented. The EU has acknowledged GDPR has a global impact and other countries are going to have opinions.
RT stated that the US will want to engage with the UK on the best approach around its future international transfers model, but understands there are still internal discussions in the UK on this. The US are proponents of APEC-CBPR model which is based around individual companies rather than whole legal systems [...] The UK and US could work together on an inclusive system [...] A mapping exercise took place mapping CBPR against the EU corporate rules system, and it was discovered that while there were differences, they were not as extensive as one would presume. Some countries have used the same set of information to get both approvals under both systems [...]
It would be useful to understand the impact on companies of unintended consequences of bringing GDPR in to play on hybrid data.
Document 4, page 23
Full document
Based on the content of these documents, we can now imagine what a terrible price Britain will have to pay to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States - from betraying partners and the interests of own citizens to betraying her national policies.
Seems a little more rigorous than the current crop of red top speculators.
Even though it might be all horseshit, Tories in big trouble here.
One thing you have to say about Labour's campaign is, it might full of unafforable promises and lies, but they have something new every day and scattergunning a wide range of people who at very least would consider voting Labour.
Where as the Tories seem to have nothing to say most days.
Francis, I have to ask you this question. Do you actually wear a nappy? I ask because you seem to spend most of your time on here soiling yourself.
It's relatively trivial to work out what fibs Johnson is telling, "What is best for me at the time ?" - An extension on trade talks that very few people care about in late 2020. He'll probably do it if needed. Flogging off the NHS to the sceptics - no chance.
What on earth is the problem with the US wanting to sell more drugs to the NHS? As long as the price is reasonable and the drugs are safe I couldn't care less whether drugs are from America, Germany, Japan and Timbuktu.
Jezza comes across as very old fashioned over of this IMO.
The NHS is one of the (possibly the?) biggest health organisations in the world and can negotiate preferential pricing from the US pharma industry. Those prices then become a reference point for many other organisations to aim for. The US pharma industry wants to take away the NHS negotiating power, which will increase their profits not just from the UK but globally. Costs increase to consumers globally = Higher US pharma profits = Good for US Of course it is bad for the UK which is why no sane PM would ever want such a deal, unless they had backed themselves into a corner promising things they cannot deliver to get elected......
So what? Those voters made their choice, nobody made them vote early. You could say the same about anyone. Something could make Corbyn implode but his early voters have already voted. Unless there's fraud all votes cast are done at the time and for the candidate that the voter chose to do. That's the voters choice.
You are SO dogged! I'm not saying it invalidates the election. Somebody asked what might the advantage be to Johnson of his Neil grilling - and the associated potential for a meltdown on air - being so late in the day. My answer was postal votes. Many will have already been cast. It's a valid observation, yes? Just say Yes. C'mon, you can do it.
Theoretically yes, however as I said earlier I highly doubt it will happen. I think with Corbyn/Sturgeon etc the Tory vote is pretty rock solid. Indeed opinion polls indicate that, the opinion polls suggest the Tories are least likely to change their minds.
No. We have a transition deal agreed. It is temporary. The real Deal has to be negotiated between January and July 2020 or else we No Deal on 1st Jan 2021. Since no one has ever completed a comprehensive Trade Deal in 6 months in the entire history of the world ever since the beginning of time.... well, you get the idea. No Deal beckons in 12 months (ish)
Nonsense. There are multiple ways to get a deal agreed in time. Firstly we are not starting from a blank slate. We are starting from a position of perfect alignment and from a position of our negotiators and their negotiators having been in conversation for years and having just struck a transition agreement. They likely already have a clear outline of what they are transitioning too as talks have been ongoing on that basis [which is why the Political Declaration had to be agreed[. Secondly an agreement does not need to be agreed in full in order to enter the deal. It is possible to transition from the transition into a different type of transition period until the deal is implemented in full. That's actually quite common under GATT rules [remember them?] - and with the 3 issues the EU were bothered about settled now they have no reason to stall or prevent an agreement on that basis.
If we are going to enter a deal that enshrines the perfect alignment we already have, then what is the point of leaving? There are only two things that make Brexit look a good idea and neither of them are rational 1. I want to live in 1957 again 2. Britain is the best ever. We ruled the world once, we can do it again. Both are fantasies. Neither will survive contact with reality.
When political parties pull stunts like this 'big reveal' from Labour, they always grossly under estimate the public's ability to see through them. It's as though Corbyn's horror interview never happened, and as though Labour aren't trying to use this 'big reveal' to deflect attnetion from the interview that *never happened*.
The public have far more nouse than we give them credit for.
I mean, if so why did they vote for Brexit? (canned laughter here) But seriously, nouse aside, I think Labour have set a cat amongst the pigeons with this. It's messy mucky topic, and the facts aren't necessarily on their side, but Labour are trusted with the NHS and on not privatising things, whereas the Tories aren't. This fits people's priors. I would also say, with Trump visiting just before polling day, and Labour pushing more and more a Johnson / Trump alliance, that this could easily change things and stem bleeding for Lab / wound Conservatives. Remember the "dementia tax" was not that, but Labour managed to market it as such, and many Tories defended it as a reasonable policy until they realised their voters hated it and they U-turned. The Tories have yet to drop during this race, but if anything could cause a drop, it would be the perception that they would be willing to sell the NHS off in part to US interests.
Theoretically yes, however as I said earlier I highly doubt it will happen. I think with Corbyn/Sturgeon etc the Tory vote is pretty rock solid. Indeed opinion polls indicate that, the opinion polls suggest the Tories are least likely to change their minds.
Wow, a teeny little point conceded! Seismic In fact I don't expect a Boris meltdown on Neil either. He'll get a roughing up, that's all.
So the logic of what you are suggesting seems to be if you want to avoid the risk of no deal you should vote Tory to ensure there is a majority government that can implement a deal?
Unless we revoke, or unless the EU is prepared to make significant changes to its own constitution, we will No Deal in Jan 2020, Dec 2020 or possibly Dec 2022. Trade agreements seem to take 7 years on average. We cannot negotiate one before the A50 process reaches its ultimate end with the maximum extendable transition period runs out in 2022. It looks like the EU never put serious thought into making the transition period last long enough to sort out a deal
That is just not true or reasonable in any shape or form. Trade agreements do not take 7 years to negotiate on average. They take 7 years from start of talks [and they've already started talks] to final implementation on average however it is possible and commonly happens to transition into a deal prior to the 7 years. The UK has a massive head start in already being completely aligned and already in a transition period, there is nothing to stop us from negotiating the shape of an agreement in the next six months then implementing via GATT from 1 January 2021 a GATT transition so we are in a deal with the EU [but out of the EU's transition period] while we finalise and ratify and properly implement the final deal. Job done - all perfectly legal, consistent with EU actions in the past and consistent with WTO/GATT laws. The idea the EU never wanted a deal from 2021 onwards is absurd of course that's not true!
It's relatively trivial to work out what fibs Johnson is telling, "What is best for me at the time ?" - An extension on trade talks that very few people care about in late 2020. He'll probably do it if needed. Flogging off the NHS to the sceptics - no chance.
That is yet to be decided. The WA is only the precursor to a Deal.
No Deal on 1/1/21 is very possible, though NI would still effectively be part in the EU, we would have paid the divorce bill and granted residency rights. Post WA we are in a weaker negotiating position.
It's relatively trivial to work out what fibs Johnson is telling, "What is best for me at the time ?" - An extension on trade talks that very few people care about in late 2020. He'll probably do it if needed. Flogging off the NHS to the sceptics - no chance.
Needs to be agreed by 30/6 next year theoretically. People are forgetting all the other things in the WAIB for example no progress reports, an attempt to remove parliamentary scrutiny of the final deal to name but two but so what let’s just get brexit done.
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).
I didn't know that. Bomber Lipman. She's certainly having plenty of bites of the cherry.
If only she'd changed her hair doo like Roger and Nabavi advised her to.
I'm mightily relieved that the slump was Swinson and not Johnson; the previous hint from IPSOS MORI was of course ambiguous: we knew it wouldn't be Corbyn.
Nonsense. There are multiple ways to get a deal agreed in time. Firstly we are not starting from a blank slate. We are starting from a position of perfect alignment and from a position of our negotiators and their negotiators having been in conversation for years and having just struck a transition agreement. They likely already have a clear outline of what they are transitioning too as talks have been ongoing on that basis [which is why the Political Declaration had to be agreed[. Secondly an agreement does not need to be agreed in full in order to enter the deal. It is possible to transition from the transition into a different type of transition period until the deal is implemented in full. That's actually quite common under GATT rules [remember them?] - and with the 3 issues the EU were bothered about settled now they have no reason to stall or prevent an agreement on that basis.
If we are going to enter a deal that enshrines the perfect alignment we already have, then what is the point of leaving? There are only two things that make Brexit look a good idea and neither of them are rational 1. I want to live in 1957 again 2. Britain is the best ever. We ruled the world once, we can do it again. Both are fantasies. Neither will survive contact with reality.
I 100% agree with your first line which is part of why I opposed May's deal from start to finish and said even at MV3 it was unacceptable and we'd be better off remaining than going into her undemocratic deal. There are many more things that make Brexit look like a good idea that are perfectly rational and have nothing to d with what you said. 1: We can better control our own laws via our own elections than via Brussels. 2: We can better control our own trade independently than via Brussels. 3: Even if our politicians screw things up it is easier to reverse that at future elections than it is to reverse EU screw ups. 4: 93% of the global population is outside the EU and the rest of the world is growing faster than the EU. 5: Developed English speaking nations outside of the EU comparable to us have consistently since 1993 grown better than we have inside the EU.
Prof. Stephen Fisher (Elections, Etc) has published the fourth combined forecast of his model for the 2019 GE outcome, in which the average number of seats won by each party are:
Con ......... 353 Lab .......... 209 LD ............. 23 SNP ........... 44 Plaid C ........ 4 Green .......... 1 Brexit .......... 0
Prof. Stephen Fisher (Elections, Etc) has published the fourth combined forecast of his model for the 2019 GE outcome, in which the average number of seats won by each party are:
Con ......... 353 Lab .......... 209 LD ............. 23 SNP ........... 44 Plaid C ........ 4 Green .......... 1 Brexit .......... 0
Prof. Stephen Fisher (Elections, Etc) has published the fourth combined forecast of his model for the 2019 GE outcome, in which the average number of seats won by each party are:
Con ......... 353 Lab .......... 209 LD ............. 23 SNP ........... 44 Plaid C ........ 4 Green .......... 1 Brexit .......... 0
Prof. Stephen Fisher (Elections, Etc) has published the fourth combined forecast of his model for the 2019 GE outcome, in which the average number of seats won by each party are:
Con ......... 353 Lab .......... 209 LD ............. 23 SNP ........... 44 Plaid C ........ 4 Green .......... 1 Brexit .......... 0
So is this going to be like the GOP Primary under Romney, where Romney is a terrible candidate but holds steady, and everyone else gets their moment in the sun and then decline as the press decides to look at a different shiny bauble?
What on earth is the problem with the US wanting to sell more drugs to the NHS? As long as the price is reasonable and the drugs are safe I couldn't care less whether drugs are from America, Germany, Japan and Timbuktu.
Jezza comes across as very old fashioned over of this IMO.
The US Pharma wants us to pay more for them and also make available licensed pharmaceuticals of dubious benefit. They see our restrictive approval system as a non tariff barrier.
just home from a meeting, about to catch up but I gather Labour are - for the first time in election history - claiming the NHS is in danger under the Tories...
Given the ample opportunity that the Tories have had over the decades, you could now attack the Tories for their failure to capitalise on this power and privatise the NHS.
I've heard this claim from Labour at every general election I can recall, and I expect they will still be making it long after I am dead.
If only she'd changed her hair doo like Roger and Nabavi advised her to.
I'm mightily relieved that the slump was Swinson and not Johnson; the previous hint from IPSOS MORI was of course ambiguous: we knew it wouldn't be Corbyn.
Johnson is on the slide too, only Corbyn is becoming more favourable.
Tories 9-4 Westmorland and Lonsdale as previously tipped by Meeks (7-2) but still worth a small punt at this price if you're late to the party as I am Labour 6-5 Coventry South. I'd love for Labour to lose it but it has St Michaels ward and Earlsdon has trended Labour. They'll get back a fair chunk of the 16% swingers to the Lib Dems they lost in the recent by-election in Wainbody. Labour 2-5 Luton South. Given the err demographics of Luton, the idea Labour will lose there is for the birds.
What on earth is the problem with the US wanting to sell more drugs to the NHS? As long as the price is reasonable and the drugs are safe I couldn't care less whether drugs are from America, Germany, Japan and Timbuktu.
Jezza comes across as very old fashioned over of this IMO.
The NHS is one of the (possibly the?) biggest health organisations in the world and can negotiate preferential pricing from the US pharma industry. Those prices then become a reference point for many other organisations to aim for. The US pharma industry wants to take away the NHS negotiating power, which will increase their profits not just from the UK but globally. Costs increase to consumers globally = Higher US pharma profits = Good for US Of course it is bad for the UK which is why no sane PM would ever want such a deal, unless they had backed themselves into a corner promising things they cannot deliver to get elected......
"which is why no sane PM would ever want such a deal" Didn't Mr Johnson say the same thing about a Brexit deal in which NI was treated differently to GB?
The logical conclusion is that Mr Johnson is not sane.
What on earth is the problem with the US wanting to sell more drugs to the NHS? As long as the price is reasonable and the drugs are safe I couldn't care less whether drugs are from America, Germany, Japan and Timbuktu.
Jezza comes across as very old fashioned over of this IMO.
The NHS is one of the (possibly the?) biggest health organisations in the world and can negotiate preferential pricing from the US pharma industry. Those prices then become a reference point for many other organisations to aim for. The US pharma industry wants to take away the NHS negotiating power, which will increase their profits not just from the UK but globally. Costs increase to consumers globally = Higher US pharma profits = Good for US Of course it is bad for the UK which is why no sane PM would ever want such a deal, unless they had backed themselves into a corner promising things they cannot deliver to get elected......
"which is why no sane PM would ever want such a deal" Didn't Mr Johnson say the same thing about a Brexit deal in which NI was treated differently to GB?
The logical conclusion is that Mr Johnson is not sane.
No that is a myth. NI was always different to England, especially post-GFA but even before that - and even May's December 2017 agreement left open the window for NI being different to the EU so long as Stormont consented.
Expanding the Stormont consent principle that all parties had signed up to [including the DUP] in 2017 is entirely reasonable!
If only she'd changed her hair doo like Roger and Nabavi advised her to.
I'm mightily relieved that the slump was Swinson and not Johnson; the previous hint from IPSOS MORI was of course ambiguous: we knew it wouldn't be Corbyn.
Johnson is on the slide too, only Corbyn is becoming more favourable.
That gap is massive and taken before yesterday's disaster for Corbyn.
Not main headline - not most read and have you read the comments on the story? Not quite what you might think.
Going to back-fire this one.
Backfire in which way? Assuming there are not many voters who actually want the government to sell out the NHS, surely at most this will have no effect.
To return to my point of last night.. I'd like to know if @NickPalmer agrees with this that Corbyn said: "Well, first of all for nationalisation you don’t borrow. What you do is change share ownership for government bonds and it becomes an investment." He is clearly saying that government bonds are not borrowing. From the dictionary: "When a government or company issues a bond, it borrows money from investors." https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bond First line of the wiki page: "In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance) So Dr Nick, is your man thick and/or dishonest?
Both....
I'm inclined to agree in general. But on this government-bonds≠borrowing thing, I really don't think he understands. I reckon McD has lied and told him it's not debt, and he just naively believes it.
At least BJ is not a Marxist terrorist bootlicker.
The only difference between Hamas and the House of Saud is the 24 carat gold cock rings.
I didn't know Hamas went in for those, and the Saudi thing is a UK, not a Tory thing. Remind us who put a stop to the Al-Yamamah arms deal investigation?
Some prices I've noted at Paddy Power Tories 9-4 Westmorland and Lonsdale as previously tipped by Meeks (7-2) but still worth a small punt at this price if you're late to the party as I am Labour 6-5 Coventry South. I'd love for Labour to lose it but it has St Michaels ward and Earlsdon has trended Labour. They'll get back a fair chunk of the 16% swingers to the Lib Dems they lost in the recent by-election in Wainbody. Labour 2-5 Luton South. Given the err demographics of Luton, the idea Labour will lose there is for the birds.
Thanks for the tip. I'd done all bar the Luton. Done that now too. Why the "err" before demographics btw?
This is such desperate rubbish from Labour. There's no need to leak anything about their insane plans, since they were kind enough to put them all in their manifesto!
Good day all Labour into desperation mode this morning breaching confidentiality over something that is not what they claim nor discussed by the current government. Shameless and embarrassing. Becoming an ever more elaborate joke of a party.
Cynics would wonder if this means Labour's social media secret squirrels are targeting Muslim voters with the same sort of material as the blue team is sending Jewish voters, mutatis mutandis.
Fee advice for the Labour press team. If you call the media somewhere for a big exclusive and then given them less than nothing, and in fact make yourself look stupid, the narrative may not necessarily develop to your advantage through the day.
Some prices I've noted at Paddy Power Tories 9-4 Westmorland and Lonsdale as previously tipped by Meeks (7-2) but still worth a small punt at this price if you're late to the party as I am Labour 6-5 Coventry South. I'd love for Labour to lose it but it has St Michaels ward and Earlsdon has trended Labour. They'll get back a fair chunk of the 16% swingers to the Lib Dems they lost in the recent by-election in Wainbody. Labour 2-5 Luton South. Given the err demographics of Luton, the idea Labour will lose there is for the birds.
Thanks for the tip. I'd done all bar the Luton. Done that now too. Why the "err" before demographics btw?
Young population, higher % of muslims than average. I know people hate viewing the UK through the prism of the this group votes that way etc but it can hold value for political betting.
Coventry is also a younger city than average. North West I reckon has biggest chance to go Tory rather than South - more white working class.
I'm not sure that selling off the NHS to the Americans is a vote loser. Those people who voted Leave knew that we were swapping the bosom of Europe for the anus of the US. It's the Hartlepudlian dream.
That is just not true or reasonable in any shape or form. Trade agreements do not take 7 years to negotiate on average. They take 7 years from start of talks [and they've already started talks] to final implementation on average however it is possible and commonly happens to transition into a deal prior to the 7 years. The UK has a massive head start in already being completely aligned and already in a transition period, there is nothing to stop us from negotiating the shape of an agreement in the next six months then implementing via GATT from 1 January 2021 a GATT transition so we are in a deal with the EU [but out of the EU's transition period] while we finalise and ratify and properly implement the final deal. Job done - all perfectly legal, consistent with EU actions in the past and consistent with WTO/GATT laws. The idea the EU never wanted a deal from 2021 onwards is absurd of course that's not true!
The problem isn't alignment, it's dis-alignment. Why do you think that can be pinned down in a few months? (To be fair, it could be, if we sign up to dynamic alignment with all EU regulations as they change in the future, but somehow I doubt that that is on your Xmas list).
On the second point, you might be right that there could be some kind of face-saving fudge where the transition isn't extended but we transition to a different transition. That doesn't alter the fact there is zero chance of having the FTA in place and ratified, with the necessary few months of implementation time once governments and businesses know what they are supposed to be transitioning to, by the end of 2020.
Yes I'm afraid that Labour really is scrambling around for something, anything to try to move on from Corbyn's catastrophic interview with Andrew Neil. Quite apart from the substance, I'm not sure having uniformed NHS staff handing the documents to journalists is good optics.
What is clear is that Labour are now being scrutinised much more closely than they were in 2017, and if the public in their wisdom elect a Corbyn led government which turns out to be a disaster (it will be) they will not be able to claim they were not warned.
What on earth is the problem with the US wanting to sell more drugs to the NHS? As long as the price is reasonable and the drugs are safe I couldn't care less whether drugs are from America, Germany, Japan and Timbuktu.
Jezza comes across as very old fashioned over of this IMO.
The NHS is one of the (possibly the?) biggest health organisations in the world and can negotiate preferential pricing from the US pharma industry. Those prices then become a reference point for many other organisations to aim for. The US pharma industry wants to take away the NHS negotiating power, which will increase their profits not just from the UK but globally. Costs increase to consumers globally = Higher US pharma profits = Good for US Of course it is bad for the UK which is why no sane PM would ever want such a deal, unless they had backed themselves into a corner promising things they cannot deliver to get elected......
"which is why no sane PM would ever want such a deal" Didn't Mr Johnson say the same thing about a Brexit deal in which NI was treated differently to GB?
The logical conclusion is that Mr Johnson is not sane.
No that is a myth. NI was always different to England, especially post-GFA but even before that - and even May's December 2017 agreement left open the window for NI being different to the EU so long as Stormont consented.
Expanding the Stormont consent principle that all parties had signed up to [including the DUP] in 2017 is entirely reasonable!
Are you claiming that Boris did not make that speech? Or just the technical details about NI being different to Engand? Of course. Godalming is different to Watford, but Boris has really sold NI down the swannee and said that no sane MP would do that.
I'm not sure that selling off the NHS to the Americans is a vote loser. Those people who voted Leave knew that we were swapping the bosom of Europe for the anus of the US. It's the Hartlepudlian dream.
Judging from the press conference it's only Momentum that believe Comedy Corbyn. Too much windmilling and nowhere near enough focus from Labour in the past few days. They need a stronger message to cut through.
That is just not true or reasonable in any shape or form. Trade agreements do not take 7 years to negotiate on average. They take 7 years from start of talks [and they've already started talks] to final implementation on average however it is possible and commonly happens to transition into a deal prior to the 7 years. The UK has a massive head start in already being completely aligned and already in a transition period, there is nothing to stop us from negotiating the shape of an agreement in the next six months then implementing via GATT from 1 January 2021 a GATT transition so we are in a deal with the EU [but out of the EU's transition period] while we finalise and ratify and properly implement the final deal. Job done - all perfectly legal, consistent with EU actions in the past and consistent with WTO/GATT laws. The idea the EU never wanted a deal from 2021 onwards is absurd of course that's not true!
The problem isn't alignment, it's dis-alignment. Why do you think that can be pinned down in a few months? (To be fair, it could be, if we sign up to dynamic alignment with all EU regulations as they change in the future, but somehow I doubt that that is on your Xmas list).
On the second point, you might be right that there could be some kind of face-saving fudge where the transition isn't extended but we transition to a different transition. That doesn't alter the fact there is zero chance of having the FTA in place and ratified, with the necessary few months of implementation time once governments and businesses know what they are supposed to be transitioning to, by the end of 2020.
I disagree there's zero chance, I just think it is challenging but moving on from that . . . We don't need to have the FTA in place and ratified though do we?
If you accept that we can transition from the WDA transition period to a GATT transition then that would both honour the manifesto commitment and avoid a cliff edge.
Some prices I've noted at Paddy Power Tories 9-4 Westmorland and Lonsdale as previously tipped by Meeks (7-2) but still worth a small punt at this price if you're late to the party as I am Labour 6-5 Coventry South. I'd love for Labour to lose it but it has St Michaels ward and Earlsdon has trended Labour. They'll get back a fair chunk of the 16% swingers to the Lib Dems they lost in the recent by-election in Wainbody. Labour 2-5 Luton South. Given the err demographics of Luton, the idea Labour will lose there is for the birds.
Thanks for the tip. I'd done all bar the Luton. Done that now too. Why the "err" before demographics btw?
Because it is antisemitic to suggest Jews vote as a block and Islamophobic to suggest Muslims vote as a block but for demographic and betting purposes, there are broad trends that, erm, well as long as Jeremy and Boris don't say it (cont p94).
"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.
They will say “your equity is worth £100 here are bonds with a face value of £100”
Young population, higher % of muslims than average. I know people hate viewing the UK through the prism of the this group votes that way etc but it can hold value for political betting. Coventry is also a younger city than average. North West I reckon has biggest chance to go Tory rather than South - more white working class.
Ah OK, so the "err" was squeamishness to spell it out. Well, it's no problem to my mind. It's simply objective analysis. Just like the header we had on Finchley & Golders.
Comments
The public have far more nouse than we give them credit for.
Unless we revoke, or unless the EU is prepared to make significant changes to its own constitution, we will No Deal in Jan 2020, Dec 2020 or possibly Dec 2022.
Trade agreements seem to take 7 years on average. We cannot negotiate one before the A50 process reaches its ultimate end with the maximum extendable transition period runs out in 2022.
It looks like the EU never put serious thought into making the transition period last long enough to sort out a deal
If there was an error in judgement here, and I agree it would have been better to redact the names, it is minor compared to the leaking of Kim Darrochs cables for example.
It's Yougov MRP tonight isn't it?
Opening the market up without removing state controls would put US suppliers at a disadvantage, which means the US will request that said controls are lifted.
I haven't seen anything in these papers that addresses that logic - not at all.
There are multiple ways to get a deal agreed in time.
Firstly we are not starting from a blank slate. We are starting from a position of perfect alignment and from a position of our negotiators and their negotiators having been in conversation for years and having just struck a transition agreement. They likely already have a clear outline of what they are transitioning too as talks have been ongoing on that basis [which is why the Political Declaration had to be agreed[.
Secondly an agreement does not need to be agreed in full in order to enter the deal. It is possible to transition from the transition into a different type of transition period until the deal is implemented in full. That's actually quite common under GATT rules [remember them?] - and with the 3 issues the EU were bothered about settled now they have no reason to stall or prevent an agreement on that basis.
Storm Sebastien will drench Britain again in next 24 hours with alerts over 109 floods after more than half a month's worth of rain fell in just one day.
If loads of people get flooded out, they are generally super pissed (for obvious reasons) and looking for somebody to blame.
No way Boris is that eloquent.
😂
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE UK-US TIWG FULL READOUT
The fact that the British Parliament was suspended by Her Majesty for five weeks at the request of the Prime Minister right before the next deadline makes this publication the last attempt to effectively counter the scenario of Britain leaving the EU without making a deal with Brussels.
From now on, it is no longer a secret who is pushing the UK government to no-deal Brexit:
USTR were also clear that the UK-EU situation would be determinative: there would be all to play for in a No Deal situation but UK commitment to the Customs Union and Single Market would make a UK-U.S. FTA a non-starter.
Document 6, page 2
Full document
The most notable step towards the signing of the agreement, as expected, will be the UK rejection of EU sanitary and phytosanitary standards, which means that chlorinated chicken from American farmers can get to Britain by Christmas:
• The US are very concerned at the contents of the Chequers statement. They were "deflated" and see harmonisation with the EU SPS regime as the "worst-case scenario" for a UK-US FTA.
• The US see SPS as the biggest 'sticking point' on risk (what they see as the 'global norm') vs the EU's hazard-based approach on mainly pesticides, veterinary drugs and pathogen reduction treatments.
• On transparency and equivalence the UK not remaining in the EU but subject to the EU rules will be more of an issue for the US than the UK just being in the EU, as we can no longer be a back door for US products and no longer influence EU rules. An example the US shared would be if they (the US) lodged a complaint against the UK under the terms of the FTA, the UK would not have the autonomy to address the said complaint under the Chequers proposal.
1/3
The gap has closed...
Full document
British citizens will inevitably face a sharp decline in the quality of imported food products. The United States is strongly determined to expand markets thus placing UK in 'take it or leave it' position:
[Wine Agreement] The most challenging element was the discussion on traditional terms. The US do not want to accept our continuity approach, even for a no deal text. They described the position, whilst referring to the issues with the EU, as "the disease spreading". This may require political escalation. The UK will send over the latest Wine Agreement text following this call. We are about 90% agreed.
Document 5, page 51
Full document
Cornering the victim, the US is clearly not going to limit itself to ensuring its own interests solely within the UK:
Another priority for the Administration was dealing with common global problems, particularly China. The US had commenced an investigation on overcapacity of steel and aluminium vis-a-vis China, the outcome of which would be a standard through which to protect other industry (semiconductors, solar panels etc.). An important element of positive agendas with the UK and the EU would be shared action on China. On the Trade in Service Agreement (TISA) the Administration recognised the potential to come back to table, but no decision had been made to date.
Document 2, page 7
Full document
After reading the documents, there should be no doubt who is speaking in these negotiations from a position of strength and who is on the receiving end. The language and the tone in which negotiations are held sometimes give the impression that the second side of the process is not Great Britain, but a third world country:
e) The US is willing to offer the UK 2 spots of the 50 in the Central California tour for ACE 10
f) Anyone who attends must be able to provide something. "Move the needle or you don't get to come back"Document 3, page 15
Full document
What can we say about respect for the citizens of the Kingdom if in the new trading space they still have to prove their competence?
...in TTIP the US repeatedly said that they would like to recognise the UK's professions but they could not trust standards in all EU countries.
2/3
Document 3, page 22
Full document
The United Kingdom will also be asked to reconsider their policy towards legal protection of personal data. Cooperation is out of the question while GDPR stands in the way of American corporations like Facebook and Google.
RT also explained that the US has had some specific concerns with how GDPR is being implemented. The EU has acknowledged GDPR has a global impact and other countries are going to have opinions.
RT stated that the US will want to engage with the UK on the best approach around its future international transfers model, but understands there are still internal discussions in the UK on this. The US are proponents of APEC-CBPR model which is based around individual companies rather than whole legal systems [...] The UK and US could work together on an inclusive system [...] A mapping exercise took place mapping CBPR against the EU corporate rules system, and it was discovered that while there were differences, they were not as extensive as one would presume. Some countries have used the same set of information to get both approvals under both systems [...]
It would be useful to understand the impact on companies of unintended consequences of bringing GDPR in to play on hybrid data.
Document 4, page 23
Full document
Based on the content of these documents, we can now imagine what a terrible price Britain will have to pay to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States - from betraying partners and the interests of own citizens to betraying her national policies.
Seems a little more rigorous than the current crop of red top speculators.
An extension on trade talks that very few people care about in late 2020. He'll probably do it if needed.
Flogging off the NHS to the sceptics - no chance.
The US pharma industry wants to take away the NHS negotiating power, which will increase their profits not just from the UK but globally.
Costs increase to consumers globally = Higher US pharma profits = Good for US
Of course it is bad for the UK which is why no sane PM would ever want such a deal, unless they had backed themselves into a corner promising things they cannot deliver to get elected......
There are only two things that make Brexit look a good idea and neither of them are rational
1. I want to live in 1957 again
2. Britain is the best ever. We ruled the world once, we can do it again.
Both are fantasies. Neither will survive contact with reality.
But seriously, nouse aside, I think Labour have set a cat amongst the pigeons with this. It's messy mucky topic, and the facts aren't necessarily on their side, but Labour are trusted with the NHS and on not privatising things, whereas the Tories aren't. This fits people's priors. I would also say, with Trump visiting just before polling day, and Labour pushing more and more a Johnson / Trump alliance, that this could easily change things and stem bleeding for Lab / wound Conservatives.
Remember the "dementia tax" was not that, but Labour managed to market it as such, and many Tories defended it as a reasonable policy until they realised their voters hated it and they U-turned. The Tories have yet to drop during this race, but if anything could cause a drop, it would be the perception that they would be willing to sell the NHS off in part to US interests.
In fact I don't expect a Boris meltdown on Neil either. He'll get a roughing up, that's all.
Trade agreements do not take 7 years to negotiate on average. They take 7 years from start of talks [and they've already started talks] to final implementation on average however it is possible and commonly happens to transition into a deal prior to the 7 years. The UK has a massive head start in already being completely aligned and already in a transition period, there is nothing to stop us from negotiating the shape of an agreement in the next six months then implementing via GATT from 1 January 2021 a GATT transition so we are in a deal with the EU [but out of the EU's transition period] while we finalise and ratify and properly implement the final deal.
Job done - all perfectly legal, consistent with EU actions in the past and consistent with WTO/GATT laws. The idea the EU never wanted a deal from 2021 onwards is absurd of course that's not true!
No Deal on 1/1/21 is very possible, though NI would still effectively be part in the EU, we would have paid the divorce bill and granted residency rights. Post WA we are in a weaker negotiating position.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1199652365927944193?s=20
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/26/warren-nosedives-buttigieg-climbs-poll-074054
There are many more things that make Brexit look like a good idea that are perfectly rational and have nothing to d with what you said.
1: We can better control our own laws via our own elections than via Brussels.
2: We can better control our own trade independently than via Brussels.
3: Even if our politicians screw things up it is easier to reverse that at future elections than it is to reverse EU screw ups.
4: 93% of the global population is outside the EU and the rest of the world is growing faster than the EU.
5: Developed English speaking nations outside of the EU comparable to us have consistently since 1993 grown better than we have inside the EU.
But yeah its all about Empire. 🙄
Con ......... 353
Lab .......... 209
LD ............. 23
SNP ........... 44
Plaid C ........ 4
Green .......... 1
Brexit .......... 0
Con Maj. .... 56
Lol
https://twitter.com/M_PaulMcNamara/status/1199641106528587776
https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1199659276014407682?s=20
I've heard this claim from Labour at every general election I can recall, and I expect they will still be making it long after I am dead.
https://youtu.be/HmowFY5-Ax0
'Proof NHS at risk under US trade deal' - Labour
Tories 9-4 Westmorland and Lonsdale as previously tipped by Meeks (7-2) but still worth a small punt at this price if you're late to the party as I am
Labour 6-5 Coventry South. I'd love for Labour to lose it but it has St Michaels ward and Earlsdon has trended Labour. They'll get back a fair chunk of the 16% swingers to the Lib Dems they lost in the recent by-election in Wainbody.
Labour 2-5 Luton South. Given the err demographics of Luton, the idea Labour will lose there is for the birds.
Seen any photos of Corbyn attending funerals of men,women & children killed by the IRA?
Didn't Mr Johnson say the same thing about a Brexit deal in which NI was treated differently to GB?
The logical conclusion is that Mr Johnson is not sane.
Going to back-fire this one.
Expanding the Stormont consent principle that all parties had signed up to [including the DUP] in 2017 is entirely reasonable!
Why the "err" before demographics btw?
Labour into desperation mode this morning breaching confidentiality over something that is not what they claim nor discussed by the current government. Shameless and embarrassing. Becoming an ever more elaborate joke of a party.
https://twitter.com/jawj/status/1199026735980990465]
There is a reason why Labour want the Tories associated with US trade deals and the NHS.
Coventry is also a younger city than average. North West I reckon has biggest chance to go Tory rather than South - more white working class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOMvs_1UFCk
On the second point, you might be right that there could be some kind of face-saving fudge where the transition isn't extended but we transition to a different transition. That doesn't alter the fact there is zero chance of having the FTA in place and ratified, with the necessary few months of implementation time once governments and businesses know what they are supposed to be transitioning to, by the end of 2020.
What is clear is that Labour are now being scrutinised much more closely than they were in 2017, and if the public in their wisdom elect a Corbyn led government which turns out to be a disaster (it will be) they will not be able to claim they were not warned.
Cat died 4 and a half weeks ago.
If you accept that we can transition from the WDA transition period to a GATT transition then that would both honour the manifesto commitment and avoid a cliff edge.
https://t.co/Z9icYCq2YJ
Ludicrous old madman
Well respected posters like @OldKingCole @Peter_the_Punter and @Jonathan are going to vote Labour even though they detest Corbyn.
It explains a lot, and also why the far-Left won’t be expunged from the Labour Party as a result.