politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gove pushes Boris out off the top slot in ConHome’s latest

Gang jailed for stealing £20,000 worth of Jammie Dodgers

As they were led from the dock one of the defendants could be heard saying: "Does anyone want a biscuit?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/gang-jailed-for-stealing-20000-worth-of-jammie-dodgers/

RoyalBlue said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

(Continued)
'Again I can't comment on the qualifications of your friends. All I can tell you is that in my school 50% of teachers have masters degrees or better in their subjects, including me as one of the two with full doctorates. '

Is that not partly a reflection of first degrees not being what they used to be as a result of grade inflation over the years? A 2.1 has since the late 80s become the 'norm' or average degree whereas in the days of more rigorous exam-based assessment most people ended up with a 2.2. I came across a guy of 30 last week who said he did an MA because not even a 1st stood out in the way that it did thirty or forty years ago.

Very possibly. My uncle told me as long ago as 2004 that I should do an MA because as far as he was concerned it was the new BA. (My uncle is one of the cleverest, as well as one of the nicest, men I know and went from joining an oil firm as a junior engineer in an office near Oxford to a seat on the board complete with very nice house in California before he retired. He handled the recruitment of in-house engineers, among other things, and increasingly he viewed the MSc/MEng as the benchmark.)

The problem there being the Higher Education Act of 1992, coupled to a certain Caledonian gentleman's ambition to get 50% of us all to do degrees.

But it does tend to undermine the suggestion that teachers are all hopelessly badly qualified, which is why I raised it. Indeed, although Gove (quite rightly) mandated that all teachers should have at least a 2:2 in their subject before training, he was in many ways recognising a fait accompli (at any rate at secondary level).

Why not set 2:1 as the minimum?

Don't know (I am not privy to the inner workings of the mind of Mr Gove ). 2:1 is the normal benchmark for postgraduate study (or at least it is in History). But the DfES decided on 2:2.

My guess would be that they thought very few maths, physics and chemistry graduates with 2:1 or better would go into teaching, even though they received the equivalent of about £40,000 tax free in their training year alone.

Indigo said:

Even the Europhile Liddington admits the NHS is still on the table

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/ttip-eu-us-trade-deal_n_5747088.html

Err:

UK trade minister Lord Livingston confirmed that the NHS had not been excluded from talks about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), insisting that it was because it would "not see any change to its existing obligations".

In any case, you Leavers want more free trade deals, including with the USA. What on earth do you think the content of a free trade deal with the USA would be?

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely bonkers (to put it charitably) argument by the Leave campaign.

JackW said:

William Galston of "The Wall Street Journal" on the numbers behind the increasing likelihood of Clinton becoming POTUS :

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-odds-rise-of-a-democratic-victory-1459899930

By 'rise', I guess he means 'fall'.

ydoethur said:

dr_spyn said:

The greater good, the greater good.

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/717746472687677442

Was he standing in the right place in Aberthaw power station to do his own bit for the workers of Port Talbot, by providing free hot air for electricity generation?

I assume he'll be paying his share, like he did in Denmark...

ydoethur said:

RoyalBlue said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

(Continued)
'Again I can't comment on the qualifications of your friends. All I can tell you is that in my school 50% of teachers have masters degrees or better in their subjects, including me as one of the two with full doctorates. '

Is that not partly a reflection of first degrees not being what they used to be as a result of grade inflation over the years? A 2.1 has since the late 80s become the 'norm' or average degree whereas in the days of more rigorous exam-based assessment most people ended up with a 2.2. I came across a guy of 30 last week who said he did an MA because not even a 1st stood out in the way that it did thirty or forty years ago.

Very possibly. My uncle told me as long ago as 2004 that I should do an MA because as far as he was concerned it was the new BA. (My uncle is one of the cleverest, as well as one of the nicest, men I know and went from joining an oil firm as a junior engineer in an office near Oxford to a seat on the board complete with very nice house in California before he retired. He handled the recruitment of in-house engineers, among other things, and increasingly he viewed the MSc/MEng as the benchmark.)

The problem there being the Higher Education Act of 1992, coupled to a certain Caledonian gentleman's ambition to get 50% of us all to do degrees.

But it does tend to undermine the suggestion that teachers are all hopelessly badly qualified, which is why I raised it. Indeed, although Gove (quite rightly) mandated that all teachers should have at least a 2:2 in their subject before training, he was in many ways recognising a fait accompli (at any rate at secondary level).

Why not set 2:1 as the minimum?

Don't know (I am not privy to the inner workings of the mind of Mr Gove ). 2:1 is the normal benchmark for postgraduate study (or at least it is in History). But the DfES decided on 2:2.

My guess would be that they thought very few maths, physics and chemistry graduates with 2:1 or better would go into teaching, even though they received the equivalent of about £40,000 tax free in their training year alone.

You also significantly reduce the talent pool from which you can recruit - especially for primary teachers, who do not need to have specialist subject skills.

@Indigo : What do you mean by 'take the NHS off the table'? It's hot air, meaningless drivel.

Of course in any meaningful free trade deal, US healthcare providers will be able to compete with domestic providers for any contracts the NHS offers (and vice versa in the US market, of course). That's the whole frigging idea of a free trade deal. I sometimes wonder if Leavers actually know what the free trade deals they go on about are.

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

(Continued)
'Again I can't comment on the qualifications of your friends. All I can tell you is that in my school 50% of teachers have masters degrees or better in their subjects, including me as one of the two with full doctorates. '

Is that not partly a reflection of first degrees not being what they used to be as a result of grade inflation over the years? A 2.1 has since the late 80s become the 'norm' or average degree whereas in the days of more rigorous exam-based assessment most people ended up with a 2.2. I came across a guy of 30 last week who said he did an MA because not even a 1st stood out in the way that it did thirty or forty years ago.

Very possibly. My uncle told me as long ago as 2004 that I should do an MA because as far as he was concerned it was the new BA. (My uncle is one of the cleverest, as well as one of the nicest, men I know and went from joining an oil firm as a junior engineer in an office near Oxford to a seat on the board complete with very nice house in California before he retired. He handled the recruitment of in-house engineers, among other things, and increasingly he viewed the MSc/MEng as the benchmark.)

The problem there being the Higher Education Act of 1992, coupled to a certain Caledonian gentleman's ambition to get 50% of us all to do degrees.

But it does tend to undermine the suggestion that teachers are all hopelessly badly qualified, which is why I raised it. Indeed, although Gove (quite rightly) mandated that all teachers should have at least a 2:2 in their subject before training, he was in many ways recognising a fait accompli (at any rate at secondary level).

Lets agree to differ re: teacher quality (not qualifications, by the way, I'd rather a dedicated teacher without a BA than a weak one with a BA and PGCE). The main objection my SLT family member has to many of the teaching staff is the failure to confirm to rules which would be pretty standard in the private and public sector - guidelines, time-management, budgets, deadlines, administration etc.

But on to university level. One of my (admittedly cleverest) pals was shocked at the initial difference between those continuing as postgrads at my old Oxbridge college vs those whose first degree was elsewhere and transferred for MA/PhD.

Presumably one of the knock on impacts of 'uniiiii educashin for hall'

AlastairMeeks said:

@Richard_Nabavi Tata need to be seen to be seen to exhaust every avenue before pulling the plug. No major multinational is going to lightly upset the government of a large economy (especially on a point where there would be a cross-party expectation that they will go the extra mile). Governments have ways of taking their revenge. Following the De Lorean scandal, for example, Arthur Andersen didn't do any government procurement work until Labour came to power in 1997.

And Arthur Andersen worked closely with New Labour prior to their election, so no good deed goes unpunished clearly.

"While Tony Blair toured Britain aboard his election battle bus in 1997, senior members of his economic team were working alongside experts at Arthur Andersen, Enron's accountants."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1791168.stm

Casino_Royale said:

peter_from_putney said:

Hills now have Osborne as short as 7/4 on him ceasing to be Chancellor during 2016. In probability terms this equates to 64% that he makes it to the year end and 36% that he doesn't.

Feels about right. If anything, I'd make it slightly shorter.

Might be 50:50 now

It is particularly amusing that just a few months ago he was going round asking Tory MPs if they wanted to back Leave or if they wanted a career.

Mr. SE, pride comes before a fall. Osborne was full of hubris, and it seems nemesis was not far away.

dr_spyn said:

The greater good, the greater good.

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/717746472687677442

Most people I speak to say they are now voting ‘leave’ in June’s referendum, with a few undecided. Not a single person tells me they will definitely vote to stay in the bloc.

“Everyone is fed up. We’re all voting ‘out’, the EU has done nothing for us,” says café worker Agnes. “This town has always been rock solid Labour, but the local MP [Stephen Kinnock] is the only person who wants to stay in [the EU].”

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/05/port-talbot-town-despair-determined-leave-eu/

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

@Indigo : What do you mean by 'take the NHS off the table'? It's hot air, meaningless drivel.

Of course in any meaningful free trade deal, US healthcare providers will be able to compete with domestic providers for any contracts the NHS offers (and vice versa in the US market, of course). That's the whole frigging idea of a free trade deal. I sometimes wonder if Leavers actually know what the free trade deals they go on about are.

Yes yes, and I am sure the government never really repaid that £1.7bn either. Your willingness to accept anything that the government says at face value is the victory of hope over experience, still, if it makes you feel more comfortable.

You are clearly the one that doesn't understand free trade. It doesn't have to include everything, and clearly doesn't in this case as the French have explicitly excluded their Film Industry. Ask the Swiss if the deal they got with China was comprehensive. It what both sides are prepared to put on the table and can accept, a negotiation.

Sure, we could try to exclude healthcare from any trade deal we tried to negotiate with the US, although I can't think of any conceivable reason why we would want to, and even less why the US would want to sign up to such a deal unless it was a goods-only deal excluding services - which wouldn't be in our interests.

justin124 said:

Do not Primary School teachers mainly study BEd degrees? Have to admit I have never really seen them as proper degrees!

Not usually now. They tend to be a degree, then a PGCE, like a secondary teacher:

https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/explore-my-options/teach-primary

Even for pre-primary, only one of five pathways is a three-year degree:

https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/explore-my-options/become-an-early-years-teacher

I cannot understand however why for that particular age group four of five pathways are based on degree level study. Do you really need a degree to understand and help a three year old? Really?!

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

@Indigo : What do you mean by 'take the NHS off the table'? It's hot air, meaningless drivel.

Of course in any meaningful free trade deal, US healthcare providers will be able to compete with domestic providers for any contracts the NHS offers (and vice versa in the US market, of course). That's the whole frigging idea of a free trade deal. I sometimes wonder if Leavers actually know what the free trade deals they go on about are.

Yes yes, and I am sure the government never really repaid that £1.7bn either. Your willingness to accept anything that the government says at face value is the victory of hope over experience, still, if it makes you feel more comfortable.

You are clearly the one that doesn't understand free trade. It doesn't have to include everything, and clearly doesn't in this case as the French have explicitly excluded their Film Industry. Ask the Swiss if the deal they got with China was comprehensive. It what both sides are prepared to put on the table and can accept, a negotiation.

Sure, we could try to exclude healthcare from any trade deal we tried to negotiate with the US, although I can't think of any conceivable reason why we would want to, and even less why the US would want to sign up to such a deal unless it was a goods-only deal excluding services - which wouldn't be in our interests.

I agree that you and I might not want to exclude health care but you have to admit there is a significant minority - perhaps even a majority - in the country who seem to consider anything that allows private sector involvement in health care to be anathema.

And yes I do understand that there is a huge amount of private involvement in health care already - something I think can be a good thing. But I suspect you and I are in a minority over this. In which case if there is anything in the TTIP which would cement private sector involvement into the NHS then I can see how Leave would feel this is something to run with.

Unfortunately it is perception not reality that seems to matter in these debates. A point I believe you yourself have made before.

Richard_Tyndall said:

I agree that you and I might not want to exclude health care but you have to admit there is a significant minority - perhaps even a majority - in the country who seem to consider anything that allows private sector involvement in health care to be anathema.

And yes I do understand that there is a huge amount of private involvement in health care already - something I think can be a good thing. But I suspect you and I are in a minority over this. In which case if there is anything in the TTIP which would cement private sector involvement into the NHS then I can see how Leave would feel this is something to run with.

Unfortunately it is perception not reality that seems to matter in these debates. A point I believe you yourself have made before.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

Edit: For that matter, didn't the Remain campaign make some equally invalid argument to try to shoehorn the NHS into a reason for supporting their side? But we're grown-ups here, so we don't need to pretend they are anything other than garbage arguments.

Interesting to see Vote Leave finally realising that it might be an idea to try appealing to some Labour voters. The "NHS privatisation" line (however disingenuous) is potentially a winner with working-class Labour voters, as well as the idea that money sent to Brussels could be better spent on British people, as well as controlling immigration of course.

The Gove-like and Carswell-like ideas of "sovereignty" as a principle, or this idea of getting more free trade deals, or "rolling back regulations", would not get any voters from the Rotherhams of the world on side.

Dr. Spyn, it's hardly rivalling Trajan and Aurelian.

AlastairMeeks said:

Plato_Says said:

Why ask me? I'm a Leaver and clearly know nothing compared to the Oracle of Islington, including what Tory members think.

AlastairMeeks said:

Plato_Says said:

Speaking of open goals for Leave haymaking. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/britain-could-be-left-unable-to-deport-asylum-seekers-under-eu-p/

Britain will be left unable to deport thousands of asylum seekers under plans being considered by the European Commission ahead of the EU referendum.

The European Commission is considering plans to scrap asylum rules that allow Britain to deport around 1,000 failed claimants a year. The rules, known as the Dublin regulation, oblige asylum seekers to stay in the first country that they arrive in.

The Commission is proposing scrapping them for a "fair" system which would distribute migrants across Europe, relieving pressure on Greece and Italy. Britain could opt out of the new federal system, but in doing so would lose the powers of removal under the Dublin regulation.

How would that position be improved by leaving the EU? This is a removal of an advantage of being in the EU, not the imposition of a disadvantage.

I ask you because you claimed it was an open goal for Leave. You clearly had a reason why you thought that. I can't imagine that you might have uncritically posted a link to an article without considering it or even reading it.

You must be new to the site.

dr_spyn said:

Lower airfares, and roaming charges, is this really the best the UK government can do to encourage a Remain vote?

https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/why-the-government-believes-we-should-remain/improving-our-lives/

I'm pretty much sure that low airfares are a result of budget airlines and low oil prices.

The roaming charges is something that is accurate, however it is doubtful if it's going to be reversed in the case of Leave.

"Government Spends £9.3m On Pro-EU Leaflets"

http://news.sky.com/story/1673902/government-spends-9-3m-on-pro-eu-leaflets

SimonStClare said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SimonStClare said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

@Indigo : What do you mean by 'take the NHS off the table'? It's hot air, meaningless drivel.

Of course in any meaningful free trade deal, US healthcare providers will be able to compete with domestic providers for any contracts the NHS offers (and vice versa in the US market, of course). That's the whole frigging idea of a free trade deal. I sometimes wonder if Leavers actually know what the free trade deals they go on about are.

Yes yes, and I am sure the government never really repaid that £1.7bn either. Your willingness to accept anything that the government says at face value is the victory of hope over experience, still, if it makes you feel more comfortable.

Richard_Nabavi's reply seems eminently sensible so why the unpleasantness?

Um, What unpleasantness? As it happens on this TTIP issue I think I agree with Richard (as I said before I don't actually know enough about it to feel I am able to male informed comment so I am looking at what others have to say about it). But undoubtedly Richard has trumpeted the Government line so faithfully in the past, even when he has subsequently been proved wrong, that I understand Indigo's comment perfectly.

If we have come to the point where the use of the phrase 'hope over experience' is considered unpleasant then perhaps you would be happier in one of those University Safe Spaces.

Oh please.

Yep that could equally have been what I said to you. Seeing insult where there is none is a cheap trick.

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MarqueeMark said:

Interesting that Vote Leave is now focussing on "Vote Leave to save the NHS"..... Could that message finally be the one to motivate somewhat detatched Labour voters?

I look forward to the usual suspects exploding in anger at the dishonesty of the claim.

Well, Remain seem to have set the bar at "whatever works...." The fact that Labour health bods get all riled up suggests they are worried it is a line of attack that could cut through.

OT. Have you seen the German film 'Victoria'? Well worth it

Speedy said:

dr_spyn said:

The greater good, the greater good.

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/717746472687677442

Kinnock doing a Kinnock.

Except this a total red herring. About 1% of cost of making steel is extra cost of energy in UK from climate change policy.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-the-steel-crisis-and-uk-electricity-prices

Richard_Nabavi said:

@Indigo : What do you mean by 'take the NHS off the table'? It's hot air, meaningless drivel.

Of course in any meaningful free trade deal, US healthcare providers will be able to compete with domestic providers for any contracts the NHS offers (and vice versa in the US market, of course). That's the whole frigging idea of a free trade deal. I sometimes wonder if Leavers actually know what the free trade deals they go on about are.

Which all sounds great in theory; in practice I would prefer our Government to be able to use its discretion in some cases. It is depressingly predictable to envisage the scenario of a US provider losing out to a British one (who may have been chosen because they have a better track record etc.), and using the provisions of TTIP to sue the pants off the UK Government and get the decision overturned because its proposal was cheaper on paper. And don't even start trying to tell me we will be doing the same in the US - our companies throwing their weight around on the basis of a US drafted deal? We all know that's bollocks on a stick.

As far as I am concerned there is no issue with our current trading relationship with the USA. The only purpose of the entire exercise is to allow bigger US corporates to eviscerate what's left of the European economy. In the midst of a debate about whether we have given over too much sovereignty to the EU (spoiler alert - we have), why are we even contemplating giving away a chunk of it to the US too?

YouGov:

Remain 39%
Leave 38%

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/remain-lead-one-eu-referendum/

Indigo said:

Speedy said:

dr_spyn said:

The greater good, the greater good.

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/717746472687677442

Kinnock doing a Kinnock.

Did we establish how much this was a leccy cost problem and how much a labour cost problem ? The steel worker earns about 30x what his Chinese colleague makes. (and to be fair, how much it is a clapped out under-invested obsolete plant problem!)

If that were the case they would have moved all the Tata steel plants to their native India instead of shutting them down.

When the world price of steel has fallen to record low levels, 95% off it's 2008 peak, then it's no longer a problem of management, but a product that is at least temporarily of no use to the entire planet.

taffys said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky have just announced that HMG is sending out a 16 page brochure in favour of the EU at a cost of £9.5million to the taxpayer. Liz Truss commented that HMG are responding to the public's desire for information and it is similar to the 1975 brochure produced by Harold Wilson and taxpayer funded. Robert Oxley of leave was interviewed and he couldn't contain his anger and gave an interview full of bile and totally irrational. My wife, who is not interested in politics and has not thought about the EU to date, became very angry on listening to him and described his interview as 'shocking'. Leave will lose this in a big way if this is the way they respond to remain's campaign

I wonder if the price tag will undo all the good of work of the brochure, and more.

The brochure is to be delivered to all UK households with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being left until after the 5th May. I think leave may try to make noises about the cost but they need to be careful that it is not seen as something they are scared of. The old expression 'you protest too much' comes to mind

AndyJS said:

YouGov:

Remain 39%
Leave 38%

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/remain-lead-one-eu-referendum/

Is it me or are undecideds rising lately in the Ref. polls ?

chestnut said:

Danny565 said:

Interesting to see Vote Leave finally realising that it might be an idea to try appealing to some Labour voters. The "NHS privatisation" line (however disingenuous) is potentially a winner with working-class Labour voters, as well as the idea that money sent to Brussels could be better spent on British people, as well as controlling immigration of course.

The Gove-like and Carswell-like ideas of "sovereignty" as a principle, or this idea of getting more free trade deals, or "rolling back regulations", would not get any voters from the Rotherhams of the world on side.

If I understand the scare-mongering properly, a Remain vote would result in the Tories having from now until May 2020 to apply TTIP as is their want (sign off is due this year) - and any changes made would be irreversible for any incoming Labour government due to investor protections.

Yesterday's Issue Index from Mori had Immigration and the NHS as Labour supporters' first and second most important issues.

The caveat is that the leading Leave campaigners don't necessarily have that much credibility on NHS issues.

ANECDOTE KLAXON, but at my work, the perception that "Farage wants to privatise the NHS" cut through and drew a couple of Kipper sympathisers I know away in the lead-up to the election.

Richard_Nabavi said:

chestnut said:

Isn't the point that many on the left, mainly sitting in the Remain camp presently, view the state-run NHS with almost religious zeal.

Thoughts of it's 'privatisation' are usually met with same the warmth shown by ISIS when cartoons of Mohammed appear.

If Remain=NHS Privatisation, what will that do to the Remain vote from the left?

Oh, it may be somewhat effective, yes.

Richard_Nabavi said:

chestnut said:

Isn't the point that many on the left, mainly sitting in the Remain camp presently, view the state-run NHS with almost religious zeal.

Thoughts of it's 'privatisation' are usually met with same the warmth shown by ISIS when cartoons of Mohammed appear.

If Remain=NHS Privatisation, what will that do to the Remain vote from the left?

Oh, it may be somewhat effective, yes.

Richard_Nabavi said:

chestnut said:

Isn't the point that many on the left, mainly sitting in the Remain camp presently, view the state-run NHS with almost religious zeal.

Thoughts of it's 'privatisation' are usually met with same the warmth shown by ISIS when cartoons of Mohammed appear.

If Remain=NHS Privatisation, what will that do to the Remain vote from the left?

Oh, it may be somewhat effective, yes.

I think the phenomenon of voters calling for the real facts are similar to those of calling for politicians to be honest.

If being honest got politicians votes, they would be honest; if telling the real facts got both Remain and Leave votes, then they would tell the real facts.

In reality, both groups will do what they feel they need to in order to maximise their chances of most votes.

Sadly.

(PS. I still think Remain is winning about 70:30 in the OTT fear stories though)

chestnut said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

@Indigo : What do you mean by 'take the NHS off the table'? It's hot air, meaningless drivel.

Of course in any meaningful free trade deal, US healthcare providers will be able to compete with domestic providers for any contracts the NHS offers (and vice versa in the US market, of course). That's the whole frigging idea of a free trade deal. I sometimes wonder if Leavers actually know what the free trade deals they go on about are.

Isn't the point that many on the left, mainly sitting in the Remain camp presently, view the state-run NHS with almost religious zeal.

Thoughts of it's 'privatisation' are usually met with same the warmth shown by ISIS when cartoons of Mohammed appear.

If Remain=NHS Privatisation, what will that do to the Remain vote from the left?

The problem with TTIP is the Inter State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses. This allows multinationals to sue Governments on the grounds that Government policy has harmed them. There are specially appointed courts that make the judgement.

The problem for the NHS is that if parts are privatised to say a US healthcare company and a Labour Government subsequently.wants to reverse the policy, it can be sued. So Governments are hobbled in their policy making.

Cameron is in favour of TTIP. The European Parliament and literally millions of European citizens are not. https://stop-ttip.org/europeans-dont-want-investor-state-dispute-settlement-trade-agreements/ This UK government on its own would agree to it.

Brexit is a much bigger threat to the privatisation of the NHS than remaining in the EU which is unlikely to agree to ISDS.

http://order-order.com/2016/04/06/taxpayer-charged-9-3-million-for-pro-eu-leaflets/

Juncker Mail...

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

The Gove-like and Carswell-like ideas of "sovereignty" as a principle, or this idea of getting more free trade deals, or "rolling back regulations", would not get any voters from the Rotherhams of the world on side.

I came across a wonderful example of an over-cerebral approach on the Vote Leave website:

Regulatory diversity is good in many ways. One of the great advantages of post-Renaissance Europe over China was regulatory diversity. This meant Europe experimented and reinforced success (which often meant copying Britain) while China stagnated. Hamilton’s competitive federalism between the different states in America brought similar gains. Now the EU’s 1950s bureaucratic centralism, reinforced by the Charter of Fundamental Rights that gives the European Court greater power over EU members than the Supreme Court has over US states, increasingly mimics 16th century China in preventing experiments and crushing diversity.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal

Actually that is a good point! But I don't think it will get much traction.

rottenborough said:

Speedy said:

dr_spyn said:

The greater good, the greater good.

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/717746472687677442

Kinnock doing a Kinnock.

Except this a total red herring. About 1% of cost of making steel is extra cost of energy in UK from climate change policy.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-the-steel-crisis-and-uk-electricity-prices

That's very interesting, thanks.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

The Gove-like and Carswell-like ideas of "sovereignty" as a principle, or this idea of getting more free trade deals, or "rolling back regulations", would not get any voters from the Rotherhams of the world on side.

I came across a wonderful example of an over-cerebral approach on the Vote Leave website:

Regulatory diversity is good in many ways. One of the great advantages of post-Renaissance Europe over China was regulatory diversity. This meant Europe experimented and reinforced success (which often meant copying Britain) while China stagnated. Hamilton’s competitive federalism between the different states in America brought similar gains. Now the EU’s 1950s bureaucratic centralism, reinforced by the Charter of Fundamental Rights that gives the European Court greater power over EU members than the Supreme Court has over US states, increasingly mimics 16th century China in preventing experiments and crushing diversity.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal

That reads like classic Carswell!

If Vote Leave have a weakness it's that some of them think the intellectual strength of their arguments against the EU is enough in and of itself to win the referendum.

I expect that's why we're starting to see a move to more visceral stuff.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Oh purleez. You would be perfectly happy if the EU signed a free trade agreement with China, Canada, the USA or Uncle Tom Cobley, you only don't like the idea when Leave is talking about it.

Yes, of course I'd be delighted if we had more free trade deals (I'd be a bit cautious about China, though). And I'd be very keen on healthcare being included in any deal, of course. Free trade is good - it improves standards and cuts costs. Protectionism is, in general, bad.

But I'm not the one making the bogus argument about a non-existent threat to the NHS.

Your view on free trade vs. protectionism is notably lacking in nuance.

Speedy said:

AndyJS said:

YouGov:

Remain 39%
Leave 38%

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/remain-lead-one-eu-referendum/

Is it me or are undecideds rising lately in the Ref. polls ?

It depends on the pollster. Some of them have undecideds as low as 10% or lower.

Anecdote research April 2016.
4 Conservative men >65yrs, 3 had worked overseas some of career, 2 ex branch bank managers, 1 engineer and 1 ex IT mgr.
Back in 2014 three were for staying in EU and supporting Cameron negotiation, 1 uncertain.
Now in April 2016, all 4 are voting LEAVE. At least 2 will work for LEAVE.
Reasons for change = 1 cost of EU £11bn, 1 Cameron's failed renegotiation, 1 fed up with EU bureaucrats making laws, 1 immigration.

I gather the campaign spending tallies start from next week, is this correct? The official Leave organisation is due then too?

I'd be amazed if Leave can raise £9m in total, HMG spent that today. We have to wait until 23 May for purdah to begin.

watford30 said:

nigel4england said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

taffys said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky have just announced that HMG is sending out a 16 page brochure in favour of the EU at a cost of £9.5million to the taxpayer. Liz Truss commented that HMG are responding to the public's desire for information and it is similar to the 1975 brochure produced by Harold Wilson and taxpayer funded. Robert Oxley of leave was interviewed and he couldn't contain his anger and gave an interview full of bile and totally irrational. My wife, who is not interested in politics and has not thought about the EU to date, became very angry on listening to him and described his interview as 'shocking'. Leave will lose this in a big way if this is the way they respond to remain's campaign

I wonder if the price tag will undo all the good of work of the brochure, and more.

The brochure is to be delivered to all UK households with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being left until after the 5th May. I think leave may try to make noises about the cost but they need to be careful that it is not seen as something they are scared of. The old expression 'you protest too much' comes to mind

Don't agree at all, it is an absolute disgrace that £9.3m of taxpayers money is being wasted on this. The campaign is supposed to be fair but how can it be when Remain is being subsidized?

It's not fair. The game is to win at any cost. Which, at this rate, will mean losing the next General Election, as so many natural Tory supporters will sit on their hands in disgust in 2020.