Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ups and downs. The referendum’s impact on individual politi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ups and downs. The referendum’s impact on individual politicians
The nation’s politicians are consumed by the referendum debate. 23 June is seen as a momentous day. But politics will not stop on 24 June. Who has the campaign benefited so far? And, just as interestingly, who is on the wane?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
[My first thought was that you'd tweaked the noses of the leavers by referring to OUT as bad and vice versa!]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDdDS2NZO14
Another miss for the meeksian radar.
David Cameron has been spending his political capital like a drunken sailor in port. He has little choice: if Remain lose the referendum, his authority will be over. His popularity is slipping as erstwhile supporters are offended by his aggressive backing for Remain. But what else can he do? "
Well I'll tell you what he could have done. He could have returned from Brussels and told the truth: 'there are a few concessions but I'm not really convinced it adds up to much so it's up to you folk to decide. I'm easy.'
Instead of which he's made a pillock of himself by nailing his colours to the (wrong) mast.
We tested the messaging from campaigns on both sides, and found that on issue after issue, the Leave campaigns had more compelling arguments. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/redbox/topic/the-europe-question/only-fear-can-keep-us-in-the-eu
How jolly inconvenient, eh?
Good afternoon.
Has anybody heard of what's happening in Poland regarding reproductive rights? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/03/warsaw-protest-against-proposed-abortion-ban
I am horrified. Thank god I am British....
Actually it is the spending. A lot of time and effort is taken up by generating money to p&ss up the wall, or create a client state. Some of the brightest Lab people I know will argue till the cows come home that we didn't need austerity but they admit that GB spent too much.
GO inherited an economy which everyone said was out of control. It's the alligators and draining the swamp joke. He had to try to cut spending but that, he found, and which I agree is an indication of his naivety, is easier said than done (or not done, eventually, in several cases).
You mention reform, and an industrial strategy. But my guess is that "the deficit" came to be all pervasive and everything seen, apart from a bit of tinkering, through the deficit prism.
Now, does that make him a bad chancellor? Focusing on the one thing that dominated the debate and got the Cons voted in in the first place? Perhaps. But had he gone immediately off-book and taxed rich pensioners or tried to offer costly incentives to rebalance the economy, I believe he might easily not have got his second term in office.
Plus the alternative would have been and still is worse.
There is clearly going to be some debate about what constitutes a "clear victory", to most voters this would be something around 45/55 or better, but I can see the government trying to spin a 48/52 win as a clear mandate, which might stretch credulity.
I think one the plausible range of results Cameron is going to be severely damaged in the country if not in the Tory Party, especially if he starts coming over all Billy Graham on the TV in the last couple of weeks.
He still hasn't finessed the question in a lot of the public mind to the effect of: If leaving the EU is such a catastrophe, why are you offering us a referendum on it, with the corollary that three month ago he was telling everyone that if he didn't get some pretty marginal changes he would come back and campaign for leave!
We might disagree with him, but that is a perfectly honorable thing to believe.
"Britain 'will thrive after Brexit': Leaving will boost pay and jobs says Tory high-flier
Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom said wages would rise if UK left EU
She also claimed unemployment would fall with 'best stays still ahead'"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3521977/Britain-thrive-Brexit-Leaving-boost-pay-jobs-says-Tory-high-flier.html#ixzz44rlaLFTu
The Good:
Gove, May
The bad:
Johnson, Farage, Dave
The ugly:
George and subs (Javid and Hancock)
I always looked on Gove as a bit of a mouse.
I think there's another thing. I think our consumer debt driven culture is fundamentally bad for the industrial strength of our country. Rather than banks lending to industrial firms - and supporting them and being good partners - they'd rather extend unsecured personal loans to consumers, that get spent on new iPhone and flat-screen TVs from China.
The only one I do wonder about is Theresa May. I think that having declared for Remain against all expectations she cannot just sit there and refuse to get involved in the campaign. As a senior Minister she has to set out her stall. Either she starts making the case for her support for Remain or she will increasingly be seen as having chosen loyalty to the PM over her own beliefs with all the implications that will bring about being self serving.
Groupthink is always a wonderful thing.
I had Sergio Leone in my head at the time.
The next event as big as Lehman's could be 100 times as big. It's about time.
Who wants a society dominated by moneylenders, who typically - when they ever defend themselves - talk about lending money as though they're supplying a raw material or air or water?
The phrase "up against the wall" comes to mind.
To handwave it away strikes me as daft - especially here.
British Influence @britinfluence
Vote for #Brexit would lead to 'implosion' of the continental bloc, warns LSE chief
I'm not going to troll by telling you I know he doesn't really believe it, though I possibly could, but if I tell you that Cameron doesn't believe in anything would it help? He really doesn't. He's at best pragmatic. He has no beliefs and no vision. There are no grand plans. That really is him. Sometimes that can make for a good manager. Sometimes you get found out.
Haha! True
If you want beliefs and vision without reference to reality, vote Corbyn.
@Indigo What country are you based in? It seems shocking that in today's world there is a country where divorce isn't legalised
Government are not interested in saving heavy industry in this country
Doing business here is expensive because of Climate Change Act 2008
We have more onerous health and safety regulations than any other major developed country
The direction of travel is bad, Hinkley Point C shows that the government doesn't understand heavy industry
The DoE is infected with climate change bulls who wouldn't "give a fuck" if all heavy industry in the UK ceased operating as it would help them meet their quota
If we lose steel it will have knock on effects for construction, car making and capital goods production, all of which become less competitive
The EU want to impose US style tariffs on Chinese steel, Osborne blocked it from doing so, the EU thinks that he did so to curry favour with the Chinese in order to get investment for HPC and possibly HS2. They are in no mood to help UK steel and are saying the government have walked into its own trap.
I'm sure some of what was said was out of anger, but overall he seemed pretty pessimistic about heavy industry in the UK and manufacturing in general.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep
With this tax haven stuff, I reckon many Lab voters will be feeling increasingly reluctant about the idea of voting to Save Dave on 23/6.
Are you still as keen on Mr Corbyn as you were? He's invisible on this issue.
That's an odd spelling of
"the City banks, the grouse moor, property spivs from the golf club, and mentally-damaged former public schoolboys who'd like to kick the stuffing out of anyone who insults the monarch, the church or the army, and out of all working single class mothers whether they insult anyone or not".
(I know you like my posts, Richard
I'm not sure that will do for voters, to be honest.
The doctor's strike is far more topical it seems to me from what I hear people talk about.
Hypothetically, I wouldn't want to have my tax rates decided by somebody who did not have all of their skin in the same game, so to speak.
The man tells Nicola Sturgeon that the Vikings "not only took the best-looking women away, they took the best-looking sheep".
"Blairmore is shown to have been controlled using an obscure financial instrument known as bearer shares", going on to explain to its evidently ignorant readers what bearer shares are, and then helpfully adding that these 'obscure' instruments "were common among offshore funds at the time."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas
If someone wants to move from Liverpool to Manchester or Nottingham to London then which cabinet minister is or should be responsible for that? Same if someone wants to move from Paris or Rome or Prague then why would it be anyone's job?
People want a power source that offers security of supply, low prices, and zero carbon emissions, that can be turned up or down easily and isn't contingent on conditions we can't influence.
Pixie dust reactors would appear to be the way to go.
UKIP's perennial problem in Labour areas is that its leadership is almost entirely composed of right-wingers.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/04/corbyns-brother-promoted-israel-did-911-conspiracy/
I also agree with Mr. Max (and his top secret source) that UKIP *could* clean up in the north of England. However, being led by Farage may not prove helpful.
Yes, to some degree, but I don't really think this is a left/right argument as can be seen from the Lab/Tory consensus to enforce laws and regulations which threaten heavy industry and working class jobs, it is probably a globalism vs localism issue, one in which UKIP could do well.
I do think anyone saying these revelations are unimportant or uninteresting is being short sighted. They still have the potential to embarrass the Government - particularly the Ashcroft stuff and potentially some of the Tory Lords and former MPs - but more importantly it is possible they could bring down governments in some fairly unstable countries, not least Pakistan. As such I think this is all a matter of both interest and concern. But the stuff about Cameron's dad seems really desperate to me.
The whole idea of the trust (which developed out of the "use", as any decent lawyer should know) came from the English jurisdiction, by the way. The Chancery Division of the High Court advertises the services it can provide in this area in a very big way. And not just to mafia bosses with connections to Russia, although of course they are very highly valued clients.
Britain stinks to high heaven where corruption and money laundering are concerned.
The signatories were authorised to perform complex financial tasks. They could, company minutes state, “sell or buy any stocks, shares, annuities” and even “precious metals”.
What the hell do they expect the directors of an offshore fund to be authorised to do?
If person A jointly inherited a bucket of offshore family money from his or her parents, and chooses to keep that money offshore, fine. Good luck to person A.
But if person A at the same time has the power to set MY onshore tax rates???? No way. Because person A has skin in another game.
I understand the difference between "conservative" and "reactionary", so I assume you don't mean things like reintroducing the playing of "God save the queen" in cinemas, theatres and concert halls.
Would it be "conservative" or "not conservative" to whack the City of London down to size? Or other spivs, such as the ones behind "academy" schools? Or to tell the banks to stop lending so much?
Just asking.
The state who was directly funding all her BTL mortgages that is... Jesus wept.
March of the Makers might be the most hollow phrase of recent political history.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahl_zum_19._Deutschen_Bundestag#Sonntagsfrage
He said the fallout is if any Party donors used these tax minimisation strategies.
There might be pressure on the political parties to return these donations.
#OnThisDay 1949 in post war Europe NATO is formed
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/khan-holds-his-lead-over-goldsmith-london-mayoral-race
The overall figures haven't changed very much, but they are reporting a big swing (10 points!) to Sadiq in central London since February, offset by a 7-point swing to Zac in the outer areas. (This is after 2nd prefs were taken into account).
I wonder if this is a real effect, of each candidate solidifying his base? It seems to be rather a large pair of shifts.