politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clive Lewis can be Labour’s future if he plays his cards ri

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

If someone attacks a pregnant women killing the viable foetus they get charged with the offence of Child Destruction. Ergo the foetus has legal rights.

And is also defined as a child in law before birth which ought to give pause for thought.

Pulpstar said:

The amazing thing about Boris is that he reached 40 in 1997: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/22/00/0001CFED00000258-3457684-Learning_foreign_languages_Boris_is_pictured_in_1997_when_he_sai-m-35_1456102641228.jpg

and hasn't aged since !

brokenwheel said:

rcs1000 said:

brokenwheel said:

Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.

OK. Some UK electricity facts.

Currently, UK electricity demand is 32.5GW. Demand peaks at a little over 40GW these days. (Overall demand has trended down for some time, for various reasons - better insulation, more efficient appliances, the move from incandescent to LED/CFL for lighting, the rise of laptops and end of traditional PCs, and a smaller industrial base.)

There are about 20GW of UK coal plants, which are largely sitting idle right now (3GW in on). Coal has been hammered by...

The rise of CCGTs (combined cycle gas turbines), which are (a) more efficient than coal plants, (b) cost less to build, (c) are more flexible/reliable, and (d) have much lower operational costs. Historically, the UK's gas plant was used to supply peaking power, but the collapse in the price of oil and gas has meant is has largely supplanted coal in the UK. There is just north of 20GW of CCGTs in the UK, although some older plants are currently mothballed. Right now, 17GW of CCGTs are on-line.

Wind currently tops out at just north of 7GW, but realistically runs in the 0.5-3GW range.

Nuclear is about a fifth of our generating capacity at just under 10GW installed. But, and here's the big but, nuclear is very rarely all available. Right now, about 75% of the UK's nuclear is on-line which is about par for the course. I would be extremely surprised (astounded really) if HPC's uptime matched our existing nuclear in its first five years of operation.

Now for the smaller parts of power generation: Hydro and pumped can provide up to 3GW of peaking power. Realistically, assuming that pumped storage is refilled every night, it can provide 1.5GW or so during every peak period.

Then there is biomass, which is a fairly constant 1.4GW (rising to 2GW when new builds are complete).

Finally, we have pure peaking: there are around 4GW of open cycle gas turbines (basically jet engines) that can step in in the case of emergencies, and another 1.5GW of oil fired power plant.

In theory, we have about 70GW of power plant. Even after retirements, and assuming the wind is not not blowing at all, we have about a 10GW of 'spare'. If you want to increase that, why not use a cheap, flexible power source like natural gas? (And if you're worried about security of supply, surely you're better off increasing the UK's indigenous gas supply rather than building expensive, unreliable nuclear.)

And how many nuclear plants are due to be decommissioned in the next 15 years? And how many wind farms would you need to replace them?

Indigo said:

Anorak said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

If someone attacks a pregnant women killing the viable foetus they get charged with the offence of Child Destruction. Ergo the foetus has legal rights.

And is also defined as a child in law before birth which ought to give pause for thought.

It's akin to criminal damage. It's the owner (mother) of the car (fetus) that has the rights, not the car (fetus) itself.

Not true, because the mother can be convicted of Child Destruction, an owner cannot be convicted of Criminal Damage to their own vehicle, this was explicitly mentioned in the passage of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, the clue is also in the name.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Pulpstar said:

Read it and weep:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-competition-is-slashing-offshore-wind-costs-to-unthin/

The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.

the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender

Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?

Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.

Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.

* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.

I don't think those numbers are directly comparable.

Although nuclear plants, like all power stations, cannot operate with 100% uptime, their downtime for maintenance purposes can be (and is) planned to coincide with periods of lower demand, e.g. the summer. Power from wind turbines, on the other hand, is naturally intermittent, so your 66% (or whatever) is purely an average with no control over the timing of peaks and troughs (although it does tend to be windier in the winter, which helps).

While I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power in general or HPC in particular, I don't see how we can meet demands for a reliable electricity supply and low carbon emissions without a substantial nuclear contribution to the mix, at least in the short to medium term.

David_Evershed said:

FF43 said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

MaxPB said:

brokenwheel said:

Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.

Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.

Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.

On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.

HPC's contract is inflation linked, while the wind contracts are fixed in absolute terms. If inflation runs at 2% a year, then when HPC comes on line then price gap will be less than 10%, and within about five years it'll be the more expensive option.

IIRC the non-nuclear strike price period starts from the contract being signed and normally last 15 years. If the generator delays building the plant, he will benefit from the strike price for a shorter period. The Hinkley Point strike price period starts on first production of electricity and lasts for 35 years. We could still be committed to it in 50 years time!

Of course it may never produce electricity. In which case the French and Chinese will have subsidised a make work scheme for the British construction industry.

rcs1000 said:

TGOHF said:

Anyone tell me the what the price of natural gas will be in 2035 ? Thanks.

Natural gas where?

If the price is above $8, then there is a huge amount in the UK that can be extracted. We have massive gas resources - but it is simply not economic to drill it given current LNG contract rates.

I want to put the massive amount of natural gas discovered in context. 15 years ago, Cheniere Energy was building an LNG import terminal on the US Gulf coast because domestic production was dropping. Now, US is set to be the world's largest exporter of LNG inside the next five years.

Canada has made similar gas discoveries, it just doesn't have the LNG terminals to export it yet. Australia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Papua New Guinea: all of these have made discoveries of a scale that is almost incomprehensible. Australia has more LNG plants at FEED stage or under construction than the entire world LNG export capacity in 2010!

And don't forget, there is nothing unique about America's rocks. The technology that unlocked shale gas in the US will be as appropriate to use in Russia, Africa, Argentina and the like as it was in Texas and Louisiana.

David_Evershed said:

rcs1000 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.

A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.

I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.

Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Pulpstar said:

Read it and weep:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-competition-is-slashing-offshore-wind-costs-to-unthin/

The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.

the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender

Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?

Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.

Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.

* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.

I don't think those numbers are directly comparable.

Although nuclear plants, like all power stations, cannot operate with 100% uptime, their downtime for maintenance purposes can be (and is) planned to coincide with periods of lower demand, e.g. the summer. Power from wind turbines, on the other hand, is naturally intermittent, so your 66% (or whatever) is purely an average with no control over the timing of peaks and troughs (although it does tend to be windier in the winter, which helps).

While I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power in general or HPC in particular, I don't see how we can meet demands for a reliable electricity supply and low carbon emissions without a substantial nuclear contribution to the mix, at least in the short to medium term.

David_Evershed said:

rcs1000 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.

A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.

I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.

Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.

tlg86 said:

Can someone explain to me why we're so obsessed with car manufacturing?

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

Can someone explain to me why we're so obsessed with car manufacturing?

Along with pharma and financial its about the only thing we export I think ?

But going by what rcs1000 is saying, a lot of the final product is imported.

MaxPB said:

There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.

It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Solar. In 15 years solar will be embarrassingly cheap.

I was in Australia a few weeks ago with the head of one of the Victoria power distribution company. The government removed solar subsidies, but it's so cheap there now that people are still putting it on their roofs, because it reduces their electricity bill. He called it "Behind the Meter Solar".

theakes said:

Coral have Cons 1/20 on for Witney come in further, Lib Dems now nearer at 8 -1

FF43 said:

tlg86 said:

Can someone explain to me why we're so obsessed with car manufacturing?

Because of the non-negligeable risk one or more of the car manufacturers will say, we're not building cars in the UK any more, thanks to Brexit. It's a lot more noticeable and politically more potent than all the other companies who decide to invest outside of the UK because it is no longer part of the EU.

MaxPB said:

FF43 said:

David_Evershed said:

rcs1000 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.

A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.

I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.

Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.

There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.

There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.

It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

Can someone explain to me why we're so obsessed with car manufacturing?

Along with pharma and financial its about the only thing we export I think ?

Anorak said:

Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.

MaxPB said:

Anorak said:

Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.

I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.

Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.

MaxPB said:

Anorak said:

Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.

I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.

Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.

justin124 said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'

And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.

Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.

Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.

A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.

snip
....' etc.

Fighting the next election against a leader who left office four years earlier will be a tough ask. There is more mileage in attacking the changed timetable of the deficit-reduction strategy but even there, the Tories can easily counter that (1) it was necessary to act strongly at the time so as to give a clear indication of intent to those lending, and (2) the revisions are in response to events and that you can criticise that the government should have cut less, or that it has missed its targets, but not both.

Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.'
Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort.
Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.

Anorak said:

MaxPB said:

Anorak said:

Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.

I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.

Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.

All good points, although I think the time where Eastern Europe kowtowed to Germany have been and gone.

Germany is still massively influential, obviously, but the emergence of new sub-blocs has made once-quiescent countries much bolder. Exacerbated by Merkel's immigration faux pas, I think, given the countries which the refugees transited are the same ones which export their labour over here!

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Anorak said:

Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.

I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.

Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.

They are only affected if sales substantially decline. Very few businesses will relocate in whole or in part to the UK from the rEU post-Brexit. The reverse scenario is a lot more possible. Tariffs and increased red tape will not create more jobs or increase investment over here, but they may well do in the EU.

It isn't about a relocation of business but instead a reduction of volume. Tariffs will reduce the volume if trade between the UK and EU.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Anorak said:

Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.

I think if I were to include all current services trade and goods then 10% is a good figure. Goods trade is far higher simply because it benefits the EU, UK consumers/businesses spend £90bn per year more in the EU than the other way around. If we had a trade surplus then, yes, they might be minded to tell us to do one, but as it stands a reduction in the EU/UK trade deficit costs more jobs in very specific parts of Northern Europe than it would in the UK. Though both side would lose overall. I don't think the governments in the creditor states or Northern Europe will want to imperil millions of jobs in their countries because Eastern Europe wants to continue exporting their unemployed to the UK. Remember that the Northern European countries will have a huge stick with which to beat Eastern and Southern Europe with in the build up as well since the EU budget talks will be taking place simultaneously with Brexit talks. Any change to the funding formulas can be made to the detriment of nations who don't fall in line.

Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.

They are only affected if sales substantially decline. Very few businesses will relocate in whole or in part to the UK from the rEU post-Brexit. The reverse scenario is a lot more possible. Tariffs and increased red tape will not create more jobs or increase investment over here, but they may well do in the EU.

It isn't about a relocation of business but instead a reduction of volume. Tariffs will reduce the volume if trade between the UK and EU.

Yep - and a lot of UK based businesses that do most of their work in the single market will avoid tariffs by relocating in part or in whole to the single market. Very few businesses will come the other way.

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.

A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.

On the other hand, Hammond ditching Osborne's austerity policies gives Labour an opening to claim that much of the pain and suffering was unnecessary and that the Tories are adopting the policies of Balls as propsed in the last Parliament. There must be potential here to push the message that the country was conned all along by Osborne. Moreover, Cameron has revealed himself repeatedly to have been a blatant, barefaced liar! There should be some mileage in that for Labour. 'Remember Cameron saying ....' etc.

Fighting but not both.

Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.'
Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort.
Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.

Yep. You fight the next election on Cameron's honesty. I'm sure the public will understand. It's not dissimilar to a twitter correspondent who believed that the best counter to the Tories bringing up Corbyn's support of the IRA and Hamas was to counter with UK arms sales to Saudi, as if national security was the ground Labour should be fighting on.

Anorak said:

MaxPB said:

Anorak said:

MaxPB said:

Anorak said:

Your faith in economics trumping politics during a period of intense political turmoil is touching. I take a much more cynical view of matters, and believe that true free trade (i.e. like now) with rEU is about a 10% shot.

*snipped for length*

Keep in mind that the UK/Germany goods deficit is £40bn, a figure that funds over a million jobs per year (based on German wages) in German industrial heartlands. That's not a small number of people or a small number of families who would be effected. Our deficit with other Northern European countries is, on a per capita basis, just as bad and would have similar effects. They will want to avoid it and at least sign a free trade in goods deal with mutual recognition of each others goods standards.

All good points, although I think the time where Eastern Europe kowtowed to Germany have been and gone.

Germany is still massively influential, obviously, but the emergence of new sub-blocs has made once-quiescent countries much bolder. Exacerbated by Merkel's immigration faux pas, I think, given the countries which the refugees transited are the same ones which export their labour over here!

If they don't then the Northern bloc might be minded to let the loss of the £11bn annual contribution from the UK fall entirely on a cut in grants on development aid. Remember, the EU budget negotiations will be driven by creditor nations trying to ensure they don't have to make up an £11bn annual gap in the finances, possibly up to £13bn given spending growth and changes in rebate rules

Also remember that Merkel might not be there, you are right that she is toxic with Eastern Europe, but I think she'll stand down after a bruising loss in September which will see AfD become the largest non-government party in Germany.

Hmm. Interesting. The stick Germany has to beat them with seems studded with nails.

Just need to bring France and (maybe) Spain into line

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

FF43 said:

David_Evershed said:

rcs1000 said:

I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.

Following the 15% decline in the pound sterling, UK car manufacturers have a big advantage over any EU manufacturers, all else being equal. A worst case 10% WTO tariff would not wipe out the recent currency devaluation.

There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.

There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.

It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.

The FPD would get the first call, assuming they make the 5% barrier, which they would were the election today.

Would they say yes though? They got Lib Dem'd last time they went into a coalition with Mrs Merkel. They may choose another cycle of rebuilding before heading back into government. The numbers are also less likely to work with the FDP than the greens as well, especially if the grand coalition scores less than 50% overall and barely makes the majority.

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

justin124 said:

david_herdson said:

Fighting but not both.

Of course it would be a challenge , but in every constituency throughout the land there will be examples of cuts to local services which Labour can seek to highlight.'X and Y Leisure centre and ABC facilities closed needlessly because the Tories were blatantly lying to you all along.'
Cameron's honesty came up in Craig Oliver's Marr interview yesterday so the media are still likely to run with it if Labour makes the effort.
Back in the 1960s and 70s the Tories used to accuse Harold Wilson of being very slippery - but he was never the blatant liar that Cameron has been revealed to be. 'Serving a full second term as PM ' 'Intending to carry on as PM regardless of the Referendum outcome ' 'continuing as MP for Witney till at least the end of the Parliament'. The guy appears to have no sense of shame at all. Perhaps , it is just his Etonian arrogance but he was as consistently dishonest to the British people as Hitler was to Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.

Yep. You fight the next election on Cameron's honesty. I'm sure the public will understand. It's not dissimilar to a twitter correspondent who believed that the best counter to the Tories bringing up Corbyn's support of the IRA and Hamas was to counter with UK arms sales to Saudi, as if national security was the ground Labour should be fighting on.

If the next GE is fought in 2020, the consequences of Brexit will be front and centre. If things have gone badly, the Tories will get the blame and may well lose their overall majority. If they haven't, they will get a three figure majority.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

They would certainly say yes. There is a long history of cooperation between the CDU/CSU and the FDP in Germany. They are natural coalition partners. Their low popularity in recent years has been of their own making rather than a consequence of being "Lib Dem'd".

justin124 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

FF43 said:

There are three issues with that. The first is that a fall in the value of the pound increases the cost of components. The effect you refer to only applies to the value add in Britain, not the cost of the car, whereas the import duty is on the whole cost of the car. Secondly the import duty is a real and additional fixed cost to car manufacturers on top of the others. Manufacturing in Brtain only computes out if it is that much cheaper a place to build cars in than Slovakia etc. Thirdly, exchange rates can go up as well as down. For car manufacturers looking to sell the output of a British made car in the EU, currency volatility is an additional risk.

There are point of origin rules, if Nissan Sunderland imports an engine from France and then the car is shipped back to France the engine has a zero tariff value since its point of origin was in the EU.

It's all academic since we're going to have a continuation of free goods trade with the EU regardless of our position on immigration. They have too much to lose, if German manufacturing jobs are lost to appease EU sensibilities on free movement then the federal election will be very, very interesting. The current grand coalition might not go above 50% and they'd need to send for the greens, or in a massive ignominy AfD if the numbers are still unfavourable.

The FPD would get the first call, assuming they make the 5% barrier, which they would were the election today.

Would they say yes though? They got Lib Dem'd last time they went into a coalition with Mrs Merkel. They may choose another cycle of rebuilding before heading back into government. The numbers are also less likely to work with the FDP than the greens as well, especially if the grand coalition scores less than 50% overall and barely makes the majority.

They would certainly say yes. There is a long history of cooperation between the CDU/CSU and the FDP in Germany. They are natural coalition partners. Their low popularity in recent years has been of their own making rather than a consequence of being "Lib Dem'd".

But for many years they were also in coalition with Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Iain Dale on Sky. He reckons that this was the dullest conference speech he has heard in 35 years of attendance.

It was so dull to my ears that I turned Hammond off after 5 mins.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Also, note how much better off (in net income terms after housing costs) people born in the 1970s and 1980s are compared with those born earlier, at equivalent points in their lives.