politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As ICM reports another gigantic CON lead Number 10 moves to sq

The kicker from this poll, by Martin Boon

"When 18-24s split 41% vs 29% for the Conservatives, Labour can only be in some sort of historic mess."

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

26% would be more than enough to win a General Election in the Netherlands.

Nothing to worry about. Just wait for the centre-right to become fractured into 5 different parties and we're home & hosed.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The kicker from this poll, by Martin Boon

"When 18-24s split 41% vs 29% for the Conservatives, Labour can only be in some sort of historic mess."

Do you believe this though? Pensioner support for the Tories is so strong you'd expect a better Labour performance here, even with the Tories on 45% overall.

Whist out on the road today and thinking about Watson calling foul on UNITE and Momentum, I felt a touch of schadenfreude in remembering that 11 or so yrs ago, Watson was plotting to get rid of Blair (Gordon Brown and the children's Christmas presents untruths )

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

Richard_Nabavi said:

SandyRentool said:

26% would be more than enough to win a General Election in the Netherlands.

Nothing to worry about. Just wait for the centre-right to become fractured into 5 different parties and we're home & hosed.

At the moment the Labour Party seems well ahead on the race to fracture.

Wait for May's statement on Osborne. The fracturing of the Tories could be days away.

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

I should have thought that the answer to your question would be quite straight forward, in words of one syllable then, "It would be the wrong thing to do".

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

Coz Lab are fucked* and a nat poll would not be known so stay safe in power*.

* = one syllable.

HurstLlama said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

I should have thought that the answer to your question would be quite straight forward, in words of one syllable then, "It would be the wrong thing to do".

Wrong politically, legally or ethically?

SimonStClare said:

I wonder if the ICM changes are due to the Budget, or Theresa May slapping down Sturgen.

You're reading way too much into what is essentially statistical noise.

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

Economist article on conditional and unconditional cash transfers:
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal

Throwing money (at the right people) surprisingly effective apparently.

There is definitely a debate to be had about how people in rich countries can help those much less fortunate.

But I'm unconvinced by those who say there's nothing i/we can do and that it's really much better to keep our own money/spend it on nice things for me and not give it to some kind of charitable organisation.

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

She can't.

or

FTPA

Anyway, keeping this up for weeks more, if not months, coupled with them stating at all turns that they're not going to snap is probably better in the longer run.

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

It would require Labour support or at least abstention to get to the two thirds threshold. This would be turkeys voting for Christmas. Not entirely impossible if you think about it. Without Christmas, turkeys wouldn't enjoy their brief and, one suspects, miserable existence.

Alternatively they could vote to repeal the Act on a simple majority. The Lords would probably throw up barriers against what they see as gerrymandering.

Probably not worth the additional risk at this critical juncture.

Anorak said:

John_M said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

The FTPA limits the Prime Minister's power to call elections.

I get that - it's in the header too - but AIUI there are still mechanisms to force it through. Isn't Tory, SNP, and LD voting for no-confidence enough?

No confidence allows someone else a chance to form a government.

There's a clause stating that 2/3 of commons (434 MPs) could vote for an election - but that would need a mass turkeys voting for xmas moment.

Bojabob said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary, surely, and that a more measured process can be followed with an election in Autumn.

FPTA.

The Frit Pathetic Theresa Act?

no.

TheScreamingEagles said:

SimonStClare said:

I wonder if the ICM changes are due to the Budget, or Theresa May slapping down Sturgen.

You're reading way too much into what is essentially statistical noise.

A multitude of threads and conspiracy theories have been generated on far less.

Anorak said:

HurstLlama said:

Anorak said:

Can someone explain in words of one syllable why Theresa is refusing to call an election?

A boat-load of new MPs wanting to be nice and compliant (to facilitate the climb up the greasy pole) would be a colossal boon during the Brexit process. As opposed to being repeatedly held to ransom by the Awkward Squad.

The sustained nature of Labour's slump means that a 'snap' election is just not necessary.

I should have thought that the answer to your question would be quite straight forward, in words of one syllable then, "It would be the wrong thing to do".

Wrong politically, legally or ethically?

In my view, Mr. Anorak, wrong politically and ethically. It would mean circumventing the FTPA, not impossible but difficult to do without looking stupid and opportunistic. There is no need for a GE at this stage. TM has said, on I think multiple occasions, that she does not want an early election. HMG should be rather busy at the moment and a GE at this stage would at best be a distraction and therefore not in the Country's best interests.

Now, it maybe that at some point over the next couple of years that TM's administration will be blocked in Parliament. If so that might require an early GE, but not now.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

My original comment on this is that people with £70m (!) could personally do something, become a philanthropist .Set up a business and employ the people in a third world country a la Bournville in the UK, build a village for £50m, these are top of the head thoughts, and wil be no doubt forensically ridiculed by beauraucrats, but rather than give money, do something with it. A mini Bill Gates perhaps.

Yes there's def the teach a man to fish thing, which I agree with (who wouldn't) but it is fraught with difficulties and unintended consequences.

Let's just say I am an Easterly-ite and not a Sachs-ite. (Linda Polman is good on aid also.)

Peter Green wanted to make Cheese and Tomato sandwiches and deliver them to Biafra! Mick Fleetwood wouldn't have it

2mins onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAOnP8ESfzU

The Tories were on just 26% in the projected national share at the 2013 local elections. If they get anything like this poll they'd make huge gains, although perhaps around 37-40% is more likely.

We await the May elections to see if the polling is reflected in a substantial number of Labour losses. That might just trigger pressure on the leadership but the way the party is structured these days Mr Corbyn seems secure.

The local elections come in four parts and Corbyn is a lucky sod that he's unlikely to be hit with a lot of blame.

1. Scotland. This will be an unmitigated disaster for Labour. They can expect to lose half their councillors at a minimum. If it's really bad, they could lose getting on for three-quarters of them. However, the ship there really did hit the rocks before Corbyn took over and while he hasn't exactly helped, even fair-minded supporters will blame a lot of the losses on errors in the past coming home to roost and / or the current Scottish leadership.

2. Wales. Labour might well lose a reasonable number of seats here too, possibly to all three other main parties (I exclude UKIP as a main party in local government terms). Again though, the Labour administration in Cardiff has been in post for 18 years and will no doubt shoulder the blame - not unreasonably.

3. England. The elections are mostly in the shire counties where there weren't that many Labour voters to begin with and, consequently, there aren't that many Labour councillors. Unlike how it would have been had this been a year with elections in a large number of metro-councils, unitaries or London, Labour simply can't lose a huge number of councillors. They could lose control of all their counties but that's only three: almost no matter how badly things go, it won't look that dramatic.

4. The metro-mayors. These possibly contain the biggest risk to Corbyn given that they're the highest profile (national media will know the names of some of the candidates). However, even Corbyn shouldn't be able to lose Gtr Manchester, Merseyside or Teeside, while the ludicrously over-named 'West of England' (Southern Severn Estuary would be more accurate) and the Cambs & Peterborough look Tory enough to discount any Blue win there. Only the W Mids stands out as a potential bad loss for Lab but even there, the blame would no doubt be put down to the relative capacity of the candidates rather than inherent current party strength.

Put simply, there are enough plausible explanations for wavering Corbynites to waver a little longer.

2018 will be a different matter.

"The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election is he? Oh, if I were going to cut and run I'd have gone after the Falklands. Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Couldn't take it? Couldn't stand it? Right now inflation is lower than it has been for thirteen years, a record the right hon. Gentleman couldn't begin to touch!"

- M. H. Thatcher, Prime Minister's Question Time, House of Commons, 19 April, 1983.

williamglenn said:

Dixie said:

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

Labour's current position is worse than the Tories in 1997-2001, however the Tories' position is not as strong as Labour's at that time and the overall political situation is more volatile.

If negotiations go off the rails, the first credible centrist movement that emerges could rapidly surge to the front, a la Macron.

There isn't a credible "alternative" centrist movement, and one is unlikely to emerge, it would just split the Labour vote even more.. As someone posted further down, Labour are fucked.

TheScreamingEagles said:

To use a well known psephological term, Lab under Corbyn are fucked. The next GE will the electoral equivalent of the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

TSE = TORY!

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SandyRentool said:

26% would be more than enough to win a General Election in the Netherlands.

Nothing to worry about. Just wait for the centre-right to become fractured into 5 different parties and we're home & hosed.

At the moment the Labour Party seems well ahead on the race to fracture.

Wait for May's statement on Osborne. The fracturing of the Tories could be days away.

Her statement on Osborne will be: 'It's not a matter for me', so I wouldn't get too excited.

williamglenn said:

Dixie said:

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

Labour's current position is worse than the Tories in 1997-2001, however the Tories' position is not as strong as Labour's at that time and the overall political situation is more volatile.

If negotiations go off the rails, the first credible centrist movement that emerges could rapidly surge to the front, a la Macron.

The key word there is 'credible'.

Farron?
Clegg?
Blair?
Major?

An incredible quartet.

williamglenn said:

Dixie said:

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

Labour's current position is worse than the Tories in 1997-2001, however the Tories' position is not as strong as Labour's at that time and the overall political situation is more volatile.

If negotiations go off the rails, the first credible centrist movement that emerges could rapidly surge to the front, a la Macron.

I'm tempted to form The Gladstonian Liberal Party.

Would capture the current politicians I really admire as well as Mrs Thatcher as she governed.

Calling Corbyn a "bed blocker" is being unfair. He knows exactly what he is doing. A smaller "true socialist" Labour Party will be in place ready to take power when the voters see that capitalism has collapsed in ruins. Now, there might be a rather long time to wait for this but what are a few centuries among true believers - Christians have been waiting for the "Second Coming" for twenty of them.

"The ICM poll is simply totally awful for Mr Corbyn’s Labour but no doubt the old stubborn bed blocker, without the self-awareness to realise HE is a large part of the problem, will just stick it out."

I've no doubt at all that's true, but who exactly would lead Labour to the sunlit uplands of level pegging in the polls, never mind a victory?

williamglenn said:

Dixie said:

Labour are not dead. . Tories were as bad in 1997. Re; snap GE, unless for the first time ever, CCHQ is not a leaking ship, there are no plans for a snap election.

Labour's current position is worse than the Tories in 1997-2001, however the Tories' position is not as strong as Labour's at that time and the overall political situation is more volatile.

If negotiations go off the rails, the first credible centrist movement that emerges could rapidly surge to the front, a la Macron.

At least you are using "could" these days, entertaining some doubt that the great change is maybe not going to come.... You're getting there.

Forlornehope said:

Calling Corbyn a "bed blocker" is being unfair. He knows exactly what he is doing. A smaller "true socialist" Labour Party will be in place ready to take power when the voters see that capitalism has collapsed in ruins. Now, there might be a rather long time to wait for this but what are a few centuries among true believers - Christians have been waiting for the "Second Coming" for twenty of them.

And as the Chinese said about the French Revolution...

Welcome.

@david-herdson

Firstly, it is Teesside!!!

More seriously, Teesside isn't a shoo-in for Labour, there are plenty of Tory voting areas within the boundaries of the mayoral election so it could be lost, just like Stockton South (which swung further blue in 2015).

As for Labour losing all our English councils, if we lose control of Durham, then that would be a total meltdown.

I am expecting us to lose all of our seats on North Yorkshire. Just a hunch, not based on data analysis.

Mr. Hope, welcome to pb.com.

My dedication to getting a true vote share <-> PNS is most definitely going above and beyond the call of duty this time round.
Particularly for Derbyshire :>

AndyJS said:

Tissue_Price said:

AndyJS said:

At the local elections Labour are defending a 3% lead over the Tories in the projected share:

Lab 29%
Con 26%
UKIP 22%
LD 13%

Do you have a spreadsheet / model for the mayoralties, Andy?

What sort of spreadsheet?

A predictive one :-) Just wondering how you saw the WM contest, really - Andy Street looks quite a short price considering...
https://twitter.com/Psephography/status/842817820652158977

TheScreamingEagles said:

To use a well known psephological term, Lab under Corbyn are fucked. The next GE will the electoral equivalent of the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

Jenkins' Ear?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, surely that Lib Dem share in Scotland has to be underrated. Half (two points behind) the UKIP rating seems incredible.

It's a subsample, so not worth the paper it's not written on. The other Scottish subsample (at the weekend) had the LDs ahead of Labour in Scotland, to give the opposite extreme.

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

I worked in SA for two years a couple of decades ago.
My fear is that it will end up Zimbabwe now - in 50 years or so.
The locals are certainly trying their best..

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Third World usually being code these days for "Africa".

When one looks at the problems places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria have so much of it comes down to inter-community conflict, war, poor law and order, and atrociously bad Government.

Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria could all develop very quickly were they to be properly run.

Given the amount of oil it has, Nigeria could be a pretty wealthy country.

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Well of course if you fly in and drop $1,000 on some poor unfortunate it works very well. For him. Likewise fair trade works very well for fair trade producers. But an alternative strategy is to make a transfer to government which can then determine the nation's priorities and spend accordingly. Of course this doesn't solve corruption (there is still plenty of it around) and generally foreign aid does best which goes to better run regimes. A further strategy is the one that @isam suggests which is to make direct transfers to (or found) individual private organisations (Water Aid is always a good example).

If you bring money into a place you become a stakeholder in whatever "system" exists there. If it's a bunch of warlords or corrupt officials you have to deal with them. You need to be clear that whatever outcomes you are looking for can be met and be justified.

A further option is not to give the money in direct aid but to seed public private partnerships that have a profit incentive but create sustainable growth and jobs in the target country. The key is to engage the recipient in deciding true priorities and to use trusted partners.

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

bondegezou said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

There's actually a school of ethics which says that you should give as much of your income to the Third World as possible. Of course, if you gave it all away you'd starve and couldn't hold down a job, so the idea is that you keep enough for yourself only so that it won't impinge upon your capacity to donate - other than that you give it all away.

Whilst well-intentioned I'm not convinced at how effective throwing money at the third world actually is other than emergency disaster relief.

It seems far more important to achieve political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimise government corruption and pro-market policies.

Then you let PPP and private sector investment let-rip, supplemented by NGO activity on public services infrastructure particularly on education and health.

But achieving political stability, internal/external security, decent land rights, minimising government corruption and pro-market policies don't just happen by themselves. They are all things one can influence. They are all things where one could give money to appropriate organisations who would promote those things (in addition to giving money to improve public services infrastructure, particularly education and health). So that's not really an argument against donating the money, just over precisely how to do it.

"give money to appropriate organisations"

ie the white man?

Economist article on conditional and unconditional cash transfers:
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-money-directly-poor-people-works-surprisingly-well-it-cannot-deal

Throwing money (at the right people) surprisingly effective apparently.

There is definitely a debate to be had about how people in rich countries can help those much less fortunate.

But I'm unconvinced by those who say there's nothing i/we can do and that it's really much better to keep our own money/spend it on nice things for me and not give it to some kind of charitable organisation.

.

Money has been thrown at Africa for at least 50 years and it has had little impact, majority gets stolen , wasted or used for fat cat charities.
Only way is to fund and run the actual projects yourself otherwise it si money down the drain as we have seen.

notme said:

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

I insisted to the dealership that the numberplate for my new Jaguar came without an EU flag on it.

And it didn't.

It did come with customised Union flag wheel badges, which I specifically ordered.

Yorkcity said:

SandyRentool said:

@david-herdson

Firstly, it is Teesside!!!

More seriously, Teesside isn't a shoo-in for Labour, there are plenty of Tory voting areas within the boundaries of the mayoral election so it could be lost, just like Stockton South (which swung further blue in 2015).

As for Labour losing all our English councils, if we lose control of Durham, then that would be a total meltdown.

I am expecting us to lose all of our seats on North Yorkshire. Just a hunch, not based on data analysis.

Can not believe you have any in North Yorkshire .The only red dot on the North Yorkshire map is York.

7 out of 72

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yorkshire_County_Council

Casino_Royale said:

notme said:

Casino_Royale said:

But, will these leads hold for another three years?

Next year, and 2019, will be pivotal years. But, even if Labour chuck out Corbyn post-Brexit one wonders whether they can claw this deficit back inside 12 months.

You can't fatten a pig on market day.

I expect the Conservatives want to be going into GE2020 with the deficit 2-4 years away from flipping to an absolute surplus, a few wins on Brexit already banked (blue passports, a few nice trade deals in the pipeline, and some extra migration controls) and ask the electorate if they want Labour to ruin it all again.

I got my new drivers licence the other day. Super impressed it has a union flag on it. It expires in 2019. Can't wait to get one sans the European Union flag.

I insisted to the dealership that the numberplate for my new Jaguar came without an EU flag on it.

And it didn't.

It did come with customised Union flag wheel badges, which I specifically ordered.

Why would you buy in ahead of the initial depreciation?

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

One should give what one can afford.

But what can i afford?

I don't need to eat out at a restaurant when i could cook for less at home etc...

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

Regarding charity, I don't think there is any ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to the Third World (although, I think the Third World should form part of charitable giving). There are good causes apart from helping people in the Third World.

Do you think there is an ethical obligation to maximise the amount you give to charity/good causes of some kind?

I tend to think there is... But it's not an obligation i can honestly say i live up to.

One should give what one can afford.

But what can i afford?

I don't need to eat out at a restaurant when i could cook for less at home etc...

Only you can answer that.