politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The perceptions on the Tories and Labour

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

SUPPORTERS of independence should not give their second vote to the SNP at the Holyrood elections, according to a new report by one of the country's top political scientists.


http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14432696.New_study_claims__independence_supporters_should_not_cast_second_vote_for_SNP_at_Holyrood_election

LOL, CCHQ sending desperate signals now

Malcolm, he is saying that SNP supporters should vote for other independence minded parties like the Greens or that bunch of nutters called RISE to stop Unionist MSPs being elected. Hopefully by far the majority of SNP supporters will have the same response as you.

One good thing is that it is even conceivable that the Tories could beat Labour for 2nd place.

Curtice's argument was that by voting SNP twice you'd actually have less of a pro-independence voice in the Scottish Parliament.

Do you have a link to Curtice' article?

It did strike me as odd that the Prot would presume to offer voting advice (other than comment on the potential consequences of 'Two Votes SNP' vs "SNP+ AN Other")

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14432741.How_the_voting_system_works_and_what_it_means_for__Both_Votes_SNP_/

/news/14432741.How_the_voting_system_works_and_what_it_means_for__Both_Votes_SNP_/

Thank you - has he persuaded you to move from "both votes SNP"?

Not at all, as I said anyone interested in Independence has to vote for SNP only till it is won. After that it is a free for all. Currently there are no other Scottish parties I could vote for.

Tories - London only party and against independence
Labour - They wrecked Scotland and UK and against independence and Scotland
Greens - cuckoo , for independence maybe
RISE - extreme left wing nutters , just nutters
Others - fringe only , irrelevant some may be for independence , hard to say

SNP - Freedom for Ayrshire turnips - Scottish independence secondary to root vegetable emancipation.

Morning all

Well, we have on topic a poll that tells us everything we already knew and a thread that leaves the quite strong hint that it's not so much "we're all in this together" but "we're all in this together but it'll be a lot easier for you if you vote Conservative".

Elsewhere, a terrible earthquake in Ecuador which will hopefully bring a positive response from the UK and the rest of the world in terms of the provision of help.

Further elsewhere, Ted Cruz mopped up the Wyoming GOP delegates as expected but New York will be very different and it's hard to see Trump failing to clean up though he has under performed his poll numbers and I wonder if Kasich will run him closer than the polls currently suggest.

On matters EU, the issue of Cameron's position post a LEAVE victory continues to resonate. It's long been my view Cameron and Osborne are trapped together at the top. Osborne effectively runs the Party but his personal unpopularity means he needs Cameron at No.10 to keep the Party in power. As long as Cameron retains (or is seen to retain) that popularity, he is useful to Osborne who has no alternative "front man".

Thus Cameron stays even if LEAVE wins because Osborne needs Cameron to stay prominent in the Government as his life expectancy under another leader would be very short.

Only two things will change this - either Cameron will walk (possible if LEAVE wins big) or the Party will turn on him (Osborne's patronage goes deep and I'm far from convinced there would be enough support for a challenge but that isn't the point).

A successful challenge is one thing and I think very unlikely - a failed challenge is something else. The problem for the failures (1989 and 1995) is that if you get 15-30% of the Party not supporting the leader, it re-enforces the perception of disunity and division and that would make the autumn Conference interesting.

Scott_P said:

I am sure the Scottish Tories (on course for their best result in years) will heed the welcome advice of the Zoomers on PB about how they could improve their fortunes...

Or not.

The Panelbase survey, conducted for The Sunday Times, reveals that Ruth Davidson’s party is now level pegging with Scottish Labour, led by Kezia Dugdale.

The analysis shows Dugdale’s approval ratings are the worst among Scotland’s five main political leaders.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/tories-close-labour-gap-in-holyrood-race-ps7zhbbtf

How ironic , the fruitcake who can never post an original thought , can only put forward the Times as his position.
Try and give us a personal position , something that you had in your own head for once rather than a twatter or story from someone else. Are you capable of any original thinking.
I may not always be right but I have a brain that actually works, zoom that halfwit.

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

SUPPORTERS of independence should not give their second vote to the SNP at the Holyrood elections, according to a new report by one of the country's top political scientists.


http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14432696.New_study_claims__independence_supporters_should_not_cast_second_vote_for_SNP_at_Holyrood_election

LOL, CCHQ sending desperate signals now

Malcolm, he is saying that SNP supporters should vote for other independence minded parties like the Greens or that bunch of nutters called RISE to stop Unionist MSPs being elected. Hopefully by far the majority of SNP supporters will have the same response as you.

One good thing is that it is even conceivable that the Tories could beat Labour for 2nd place.

Curtice's argument was that by voting SNP twice you'd actually have less of a pro-independence voice in the Scottish Parliament.

Do you have a link to Curtice' article?

It did strike me as odd that the Prot would presume to offer voting advice (other than comment on the potential consequences of 'Two Votes SNP' vs "SNP+ AN Other")

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14432741.How_the_voting_system_works_and_what_it_means_for__Both_Votes_SNP_/

/news/14432741.How_the_voting_system_works_and_what_it_means_for__Both_Votes_SNP_/

Thank you - has he persuaded you to move from "both votes SNP"?

Not at all, as I said anyone interested in Independence has to vote for SNP only till it is won. After that it is a free for all. Currently there are no other Scottish parties I could vote for.

Tories - London only party and against independence
Labour - They wrecked Scotland and UK and against independence and Scotland
Greens - cuckoo , for independence maybe
RISE - extreme left wing nutters , just nutters
Others - fringe only , irrelevant some may be for independence , hard to say

Fair enough- we shall have to see how it all shakes out (and I certainly don't disagree with your analysis of the Greens or RISE - tho that marmite vs peanut butter PPB is one to cherish)

Peanut butter every time

A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.

George Osborne ✔ ‎@George_Osborne
"UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"

two thirds of Germans think Merkel was wrong to allow the prosecution of the satirist Boehmermann.

Angie seems set on self destruction.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/fall-boehmermann-zwei-drittel-der-deutschen-halten-merkels-entscheidung-fuer-falsch-14183251.html

Plato_Says said:

That's my impression too, we haven't found someone here willing to pen a positive Remain thread header so far.

What are they?

runnymede said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Plato_Says said:

Dan's 2p

A few days ago, senior officials in the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign awoke to find an email from Ryan Coetzee, the pugnacious South African director of strategy, sitting in their inboxes. 'Ignore all the noises off telling us to drop risk. We are sticking rigidly to our 50:50 strategy.'

The '50:50 strategy' is a simple one. For every message voters receive describing the sunlit uplands of life within the EU, they will also receive one that chills them to the bone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3543872/DAN-HODGES-Not-scared-leaving-EU-soon-Stronger-brigade-crank-powerful-weapon-Project-Fear.html

This gives me hope. I wonder if he'll be daring to run naked somewhere.

I found this baffling, as there have been no messages about 'sunlit uplands' at all. Indeed, I would say the BSE strategy has been more like 100:0 to 'Fear'.

Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.

I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.

Which is why we will hear nothing of this sort from the REMAIN side, just lots of (laughable) economic scare stories. That is all they have got, and they know it.

runnymede said:

Plato_Says said:

That's my impression too, we haven't found someone here willing to pen a positive Remain thread header so far.

What are they?

runnymede said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Plato_Says said:

Dan's 2p

A few days ago, senior officials in the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign awoke to find an email from Ryan Coetzee, the pugnacious South African director of strategy, sitting in their inboxes. 'Ignore all the noises off telling us to drop risk. We are sticking rigidly to our 50:50 strategy.'

The '50:50 strategy' is a simple one. For every message voters receive describing the sunlit uplands of life within the EU, they will also receive one that chills them to the bone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3543872/DAN-HODGES-Not-scared-leaving-EU-soon-Stronger-brigade-crank-powerful-weapon-Project-Fear.html

This gives me hope. I wonder if he'll be daring to run naked somewhere.

I found this baffling, as there have been no messages about 'sunlit uplands' at all. Indeed, I would say the BSE strategy has been more like 100:0 to 'Fear'.

Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.

I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.

Which is why we will hear nothing of this sort from the REMAIN side, just lots of (laughable) economic scare stories. That is all they have got, and they know it.

Actually, despite probably being very europhile, I've never had the slightest smidgen of a row with David Herdson on the EU, and am full of respect for him.

He is possibly the most reasonable and measured Remainer on here. For example, he has also criticised Project Fear for being way OTT. He doesn't push attack lines: he concedes where his opponents have an argument, respectfully, and gently points out where he disagrees.

Many other Remainers could learn from him.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.

George Osborne ✔ ‎@George_Osborne
"UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"

Osborne's comment could be interpreted as "I am incapable of negotiating a good deal for the UK". To which the obvious response is, "Well, piss off then and let us have a chancellor who is competent"

runnymede said:

Plato_Says said:

That's my impression too, we haven't found someone here willing to pen a positive Remain thread header so far.

What are they?

runnymede said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Plato_Says said:

Dan's 2p

A few days ago, senior officials in the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign awoke to find an email from Ryan Coetzee, the pugnacious South African director of strategy, sitting in their inboxes. 'Ignore all the noises off telling us to drop risk. We are sticking rigidly to our 50:50 strategy.'

The '50:50 strategy' is a simple one. For every message voters receive describing the sunlit uplands of life within the EU, they will also receive one that chills them to the bone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3543872/DAN-HODGES-Not-scared-leaving-EU-soon-Stronger-brigade-crank-powerful-weapon-Project-Fear.html

This gives me hope. I wonder if he'll be daring to run naked somewhere.

I found this baffling, as there have been no messages about 'sunlit uplands' at all. Indeed, I would say the BSE strategy has been more like 100:0 to 'Fear'.

Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.

I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.

Which is why we will hear nothing of this sort from the REMAIN side, just lots of (laughable) economic scare stories. That is all they have got, and they know it.

The most realistic recognition of the EU's issues that we read and hear from REMAINers is a form of Gerald Ratner product truth along with a TINA. Yes we know the EU is a bit cr*p but There Is No Alternative.

Try and fit a sunny uplands to that? This belief is an acceptance that we are just managing the EU stagnation. Our civil servants used to say pre-Thatcher, that they were just managing our country's decline. So maybe being pro-EU is a more modern form of the post war mind set of our civil servants?

stodge said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.

George Osborne ✔ ‎@George_Osborne
"UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"

Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.

This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.

The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.

If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.

I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.

In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.

Top post, Mr Stodge.

HurstLlama said:

stodge said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.

George Osborne ✔ ‎@George_Osborne
"UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"

Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.

This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.

The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.

If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.

I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.

In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.

Top post, Mr Stodge.

Agreed. I think a Brexit vote is in both our interests, and the EU's.

TCPoliticalBetting - it is odd, insn't it. He must have seen the complete collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland, the rejection of the internationalist leadership in Labour England, the collapse of the EU favouring (anybody except the English) Liberal Party - then says this. I have always voted Conservative because I thought they were on the country's side and I really didn't think Labour was. I don't vote Conservative to save a few thousand pounds of tax. There are cards to play in any trade negotiation - the 90 billion deficit - the 5 or 6 million EU nationals that will also lose their jobs. He is refusing to represent me, and I will not vote for him.

It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.

The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.

A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.

OllyT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yesterday Boris said that David Cameron will continue as PM post a leave vote and today on Marr both David Davis and Chris Grayling re-affirmed that Ken Clarke was wrong in his statement that David Cameron would be gone within 30 seconds of a leave vote and Chris Grayling went further by saying that his contacts throughout Europe would be invaluable as part of an exit team in negotiations with the EU. Is the leave campaign trying to re-assure the undecided conservatives that it is safe to vote leave and that a civil war will not follow any such vote

I think they are just calling it as they see it. To be honest it would probably serve their cause better if they could persuade the country that voting Leave was voting to get rid of Cameron but the fact that they are not playing that card shows me that they genuinely believe Cameron can and should stay. In spite of my occasional bouts of doubt and disdain for Cameron over the EU question it is a view I share.

Whatever they think in private, they cannot publicly say Cameron's job is on the line. They are members of the government, after all; or aspire to be, in Boris's case. In practice, how on earth could Cameron lead exit negotiations when he doesn't want to leave? It would be a recipe for permanent friction, at the very least. His authority would be utterly shot - both inside Parliament and with EU member states.

It is in vote LEAVE's best interest for the 2/3 or more of voters that do not want Cameron, to believe that voting LEAVE will kick Cameron out because some of them will use that as their main reason to vote LEAVE. The fact that Conservative LEAVE people are saying the opposite is down to party loyalty. Admirable, but not in best interests of LEAVE.

No left of centre voter is going to vote Leave in order to kick Cameron out when they will get Gove/Boris/Farage/IDS instead. It's a pipe dream.

"No left of centre voter is going to vote Leave..." That is a very emphatic view. no voter, not even one or two...? You cannot be serious.

JackW said:

MikeK said:

JackW said:

OldKingCole said:

JackW said:

MikeK said:

JackW said:

OldKingCole said:

kle4 said:

Plato_Says said:

http://thetab.com/2016/04/13/uk-prime-minister-86166

I got Winston Churchill. Which are you?

Pitt the younger.

So did I. But at almost 80 I haven’t died young!

Tsk .... 80 - call that old !! ....

Get some in, as we used to say in the forces, @OldKingCole.

Mines a large one ....

Oh er missus ..

It's no laughing matter .... though Mrs JackW would disagree !! ....

Oh dear! I'm ashamed of you JackW, an uncontrollable wife in the foreground. Still, I'll have whisky; I'll leave you to pick the brand.

I've been recently reprising an old Speyside single malt favourite - Royal Lochnagar ....

Are you the original Old Man of Lochnagar, then? Thought you had a castle!

Andrew Marr made the point to Grayling that negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU would be very difficult because the main EU countries have a very different mindset to us about Europe.

Neither of them followed up the consequential issue that this is perhaps the fundamental reason for a separation.

AlastairMeeks said:

It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.

The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.

A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.

what do you see as the painful compromises ?

stodge said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.

George Osborne ✔ ‎@George_Osborne
"UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"

Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.

This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.

The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.

If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.

I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.

In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.

Agree with this completely. Very good post.

OldKingCole said:

JackW said:

MikeK said:

JackW said:

OldKingCole said:

JackW said:

MikeK said:

JackW said:

OldKingCole said:

kle4 said:

Plato_Says said:

http://thetab.com/2016/04/13/uk-prime-minister-86166

I got Winston Churchill. Which are you?

Pitt the younger.

So did I. But at almost 80 I haven’t died young!

Tsk .... 80 - call that old !! ....

Get some in, as we used to say in the forces, @OldKingCole.

Mines a large one ....

Oh er missus ..

It's no laughing matter .... though Mrs JackW would disagree !! ....

Oh dear! I'm ashamed of you JackW, an uncontrollable wife in the foreground. Still, I'll have whisky; I'll leave you to pick the brand.

I've been recently reprising an old Speyside single malt favourite - Royal Lochnagar ....

Are you the original Old Man of Lochnagar, then? Thought you had a castle!

The hugely expensive quack says I might be a former old man if I keep knocking back the Royal Lochnagar.

Sod it, I can't take it with me !! ....

SouthamObserver said:

rcs1000 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.

The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.

A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.

It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.

Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?

really. This just shows a lot of people are talking bollocks about cars. Car parts come from all over the world and the manufacturers produce in many countries.

People yelling about BMW not selling cars in the UK should ask why our trade with South Africa should be impacted.

HurstLlama said:

@RCS1000

" people fear loss more than they crave gain"

I am not sure that is actually the case, or at least is not universally true. If it was the tobacco industry would have gone under decades ago and wars would have ceased through lack of participants centuries ago.

Some years ago I remember looking at some work on what motivates people and the conclusion then was, if memory serves, that about 40% of people are mostly motivated by fear of loss and about 40% were mostly motivated by hope of gain with the remainder swinging either way depending on the context. OK, that work was mainly carried out in the USA, and perhaps they are a more optimistic people, but when we applied it in our management/leadership training it seemed to hold good.

There's a huge amount of academic research that backs up loss aversion. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

rcs1000 said:

Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.

I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.

I think that is a misrepresentation of this position. The starting point was that the emerging European Community operating without British influence represented a substantial threat to British economic interests. And so the reluctant conclusion reached was that the best way to preserve British interests was to join it. Or at least that was what I took to be the Macmillan position as articulated in the programme on the BBC the other night.

It wasn't based on some starry eyed idea of the great things the European Community would achieve in the future.

https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/721469201999912960?s=09

stodge said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

A bad "we are weak" position for Osborne to take, if he ever wanted to be PM.

George Osborne ✔ ‎@George_Osborne
"UK would have to pay into EU budget & accept free movement to access single market after #Brexit,@EmmanuelMacron makes clear #marr"

Very rare I agree with you on anything but absolutely right on this.

This is classic campaigning rhetoric based on creating fear and anxiety. IF we vote to LEAVE, it will be in both our and the EU's interests to come to a mutually acceptable deal on this. It suits no one to cut us away from the Single Market but nor should we, if we have voted to LEAVE, have to contribute to the EU budget or follow their diktats.

The deal we strike for our continued political and economic relationship with the EU, whether alone or as leaders of a re-invigorated EFTA, will be key. Clearly, the EU fear if we get a good deal, it will tempt others to want to leave - if so, so be it.

If it takes our departure to bring about the fundamental institutional reform the EU needs, so be it. If other European countries wish to move to full political and economic union, again, so be it. Nothing precludes us working with the EU in future on areas of common concern and the migrant crisis is one of those areas, whether we like it or not.

I'm no isolationist and I don't believe the vast majority of LEAVE supporters are either - we will still need to engage with the world outside the EU, be it NAFTA, the Commonwealth, China or whoever. I'd rather we do it on our own terms but I recognise the risk we might not get as food a deal as we would if part of the EU but that doesn't matter - they would be our terms.

In a post-EU Britain, I'd also like to think both the FCO and the DTI will regain the importance they deserve but also be able to rapidly move to the new realities in terms of the need to promote Britain for business.

The key term here is "mutually acceptable". What it doesn't mean is everything the UK demands. The unknowables are just how much we and the EU have to concede to get to a deal, the timeframe and the damage the uncertainty will do in the meantime. For example, could a UK government make concessions on free movement of people in order to safeguard free movement of capital for the City? How does making concessions for the City help Frankfurt and Paris? And so on.

SouthamObserver said:

rcs1000 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.

The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.

A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.

It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.

Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?

A question is whether we have more choices to buy things from than the EU has for the exports we provide them? My gut reaction is that the world is a bigger marketplace to buy from for us whereas what we sell to the EU is more specialised, more local (agricultural) and in relative decline compared to what we sell elsewhere.

alex. said:

rcs1000 said:

Well David Herdson has tentatively posted a few times from the traditional (ie 60s/70s) position of 'UK must be part of a new EU state that will be a real power in the world'.

I applaud his (tentative) honesty on this. But of course he is clever enough to know that this notion is wildly unpopular among the voters.

I think that is a misrepresentation of this position. The starting point was that the emerging European Community operating without British influence represented a substantial threat to British economic interests. And so the reluctant conclusion reached was that the best way to preserve British interests was to join it. Or at least that was what I took to be the Macmillan position as articulated in the programme on the BBC the other night.

It wasn't based on some starry eyed idea of the great things the European Community would achieve in the future.

Your quoting is wrong. I didn't say that.

Mr. Observer, do Iceland or Turkey face EU tariffs? Could've sworn I read Andrew Neil said that from Iceland to Turkey, and all points in between, there were no tariffs.

Alistair said:

(Govt drive to register university students etc etc)

Where will the university students be on June 23rd?
1. At university (with the register),
2. On holiday away (unable to vote)
3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

rcs1000 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.

The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.

A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.

It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.

Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?

really. This just shows a lot of people are talking bollocks about cars. Car parts come from all over the world and the manufacturers produce in many countries.

People yelling about BMW not selling cars in the UK should ask why our trade with South Africa should be impacted.

Who said anything about BMW not selling cars in the UK? But the fact is that tariffs on cars made in the EU - the threat implicit in the claim "they need us more than we need them" - will raise prices and so restrict choice.

over the last months Ive seen lots of remainers make the statement. As for restriction of choice I seriously doubt it. Models are produced in many places.

All right hand drive BMW 3 series ( their biggest selling car ) are produced in S Africa not Germany. The japanese, produce the same cars as Europe in Japan, Peugeot and Renault ditto in China and Russia. VW produces worldwide as does Mercedes.

So where's the restriction in choice coming from ?

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

@RCS1000

" people fear loss more than they crave gain"

I am not sure that is actually the case, or at least is not universally true. If it was the tobacco industry would have gone under decades ago and wars would have ceased through lack of participants centuries ago.

Some years ago I remember looking at some work on what motivates people and the conclusion then was, if memory serves, that about 40% of people are mostly motivated by fear of loss and about 40% were mostly motivated by hope of gain with the remainder swinging either way depending on the context. OK, that work was mainly carried out in the USA, and perhaps they are a more optimistic people, but when we applied it in our management/leadership training it seemed to hold good.

There's a huge amount of academic research that backs up loss aversion. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

Yes, I know, Mr. Robert, but look at the context of that article. It is about money and even then it is not universally true - your own career as a serial entrepreneur creating new companies could not happen if it was.

If, as claimed in the article, "Humans are hardwired to be risk averse", then we would still be living in caves, probably somewhere in Africa. Every step in, to use Jacob Bronowski's immortal phrase, The Ascent of Man has required risk of loss (most commonly of life) but it has still been taken.

Mr. Observer, I think it implies that Osborne's a doom-mongering wet lettuce.

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

rcs1000 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.

The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.

A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.

It is important to ask what alternative markets there are for both British exports to the EU, and EU exports to the UK.

Indeed. Look at cars. Why would the UK government choose to reduce consumer choice and increase prices? Why would it put tariffs on products that can only be sourced from the EU? How much of the stuff we import from Europe currently could be imported from elsewhere ar no cost to us? How much of what we sell into Europe could be replaced at no cost to the Europeans?

really. This just shows a lot of people are talking bollocks about cars. Car parts come from all over the world and the manufacturers produce in many countries.

People yelling about BMW not selling cars in the UK should ask why our trade with South Africa should be impacted.

Who said anything about BMW not selling cars in the UK? But the fact is that tariffs on cars made in the EU - the threat implicit in the claim "they need us more than we need them" - will raise prices and so restrict choice.

The comment about "only sourced from the EU" did not refer to cars, but to other goods ranging from, say, Champagne to specialist medical equipment. Before you put tariffs on stuff you need alternative sources of supply at lower cost.

There are excellent English substitutes for champagne. Nyetimber for example beats champagne in blind tastings by the French. Global warming is helping. God on our side.

@Alanbrooke - the restriction of choice comes from the imposition of tariffs because tariffs raise prices.

God, how I've missed the joyous, good natured festivals of sportsmanship that are Old Firm matches.

https://twitter.com/Henbell/status/721646220624732162

Project fear - Turkey is going to join the EU, the EU makes terrorist attacks more likely, the only way to save the NHS is to leave the EU, the EU wants to subsume the UK into a European superstate. And so on.

@David Evershed. There's also cava and prosecco and all the French cremants. Oh, wait a minute ... :-)

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It's one thing criticising Project Fear. It's another thing entirely conjuring up the prospect of a post-Leave deal with the EU which magically gives Britain everything the Leavers want.

The idea that any negotiation with the EU after a vote to leave would be easy, speedy, resolved on favourable terms for Britain or even conducted in a rational way is the stuff of pure fantasy.

A deal would be struck but there would be some very painful compromises. Leavers are deluding themselves if they imagine otherwise.

Because it doesn't suit your narrative you ignore the most obvious solution which is EFTA membership. Under those circumstances there is very little renegotiation to be done as we would be retaining our EEA membership and practically every trade and treaty issue would be resolved automatically.

With freedom of movement retained and a contribution to the EU, just as George Osborne said (and was being criticised by your fellow Leavers downthread for saying).

Well I am happy with freedom of movement. And that contribution would be about 1/4 of our current net contribution.

More to the point the vast majority of EU rulings would no longer apply to us.

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

How are the Leave campaign dealing with Scottish Independence? If we get out, the Scots will have a second vote. How is the campaign handling it?

That's a myth. A second referendum won't be held until Sturgeon thinks she can win it:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/brexit-vote-scotland-out-uk-scottish-independence

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14432723.Second_referendum_only_if_MOST_Scots_want_it__Sturgeon_confirms/

A second referendum will not be held until agreed to by the UK Parliament.

A second legal referendum will not be held until agreed to by the UK Parliament.

They might not need to, as the UK will be 'offered' a 2nd EU referendum IMHO. Boris was right on that one.

SouthamObserver said:

@David Evershed. There's also cava and prosecco and all the French cremants. Oh, wait a minute ... :-)

New Zealand in particular is stealing the role of French Bordeaux and Burgundy with their Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir.

More ludicrous scaremongering - this time from the French

Britain would be 'killed' in trade talks if it left EU, says French minister
Major powers such as China would have little interest
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/17/britain-killed-in-trade-talks-eu-french-minister-emmanuel-macron

I never knew that the Chines took their instructions from Paris. And as for 'Major Powers' - there are only two - The USA and China.

Indigo said:

David_Evershed said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Alistair said:

(Govt drive to register university students etc etc)

Where will the university students be on June 23rd?
1. At university (with the register),
2. On holiday away (unable to vote)
3. Or back at home? (possibly unregistered)

Worrying about exam results, looking for a job, spaced out?

At Glastonbury Festival 22-26 June

The big names at Glastonbury do not first appear until the Friday night

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

@Alanbrooke - the restriction of choice comes from the imposition of tariffs because tariffs raise prices.

Didn't Ford move some of the manufacturing out of the UK to Turkey? That is from within the EU to outside of the EU. Tariffs were obviously a problem.

Andrew Neil said Turkey did not face tariffs exporting goods to the EU, which they seem to have without conceding free movement of people.

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

@Alanbrooke - the restriction of choice comes from the imposition of tariffs because tariffs raise prices.

Didn't Ford move some of the manufacturing out of the UK to Turkey? That is from within the EU to outside of the EU. Tariffs were obviously a problem.

Yep and they used EU grants to help to do it.