politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Yesterday’s interviews could prove to have been Alex Salmon

Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics)
23/03/2015 11:16
Why is Nigel Farage considered fair game? tgr.ph/1HrAg6U

'I’ve often worried about Farage’s safety. British politics is tense at the moment: this achingly dull election campaign masks inequality, racial tension, cultural anxiety and real hate. Politicians have been attacked: George Galloway was assaulted. Farage was forced to hide from a mob during the Scottish election campaign – and the reaction to that episode was oddly tolerant. Sarah Champion MP described the fact that a crowd "trapped" him inside a Ukip shop when touring Rotherham as "hilarious". There’s a feeling among some that Farage sort of brings this on himself, while the various causes of those who shout him down are so right-on, so compassionate, so supercalifragilisticexpialidocious that sympathy has often fallen with the protestors rather than the man with an elected office trying to exercise his right to canvass.

And what exactly is he supposed to have done to attract such bile? Nigel Farage is guilty of the crime of having an opinion. But even if you find his opinion to be offensive, it’s still odd to want to drive this man in particular off the national stage. A) Farage has absolutely no institutional power whatsoever in Britain and so hounding him is like kicking a puppy. And b) most of his rhetoric and policies have been taken up by Labour and the Tories – people with genuine power yet who don’t grace the Far Left’s hit list. And if the families of Miliband and Cameron were so targeted, we’d all be talking about a "crisis in our democracy". Not so when it’s the Farages. The whisper will be going around London right now: “He created this political atmosphere. It’s sort of his fault”.'

Hallam, sure. Leeds NW OK

Bradford East though ?!

The only way Labour loses Bradford East is if Respect stick up a candidate there.

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.

One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....

Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?

In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.

I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.

The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.

TGOHF said:

Boo hoo - poor Nige - he's so hard done by - he should be allowed to pick on all these people , throw bricks at them and have no comeback.

Any politician is entitled not be assaulted. Even one who takes votes from the Conservatives.

A PWC report on personal borrowing. A couple of points I find interesting.

1. Household debt deleveraging appears to be over. Now stands at around 145% of income, and has been stable at that level for at least a year I think.

2. The OBR forecasts a large increase in household debt, to above the pre-crisis peak by 2020.

The second point is interesting, because the very first forecasts from the OBR in 2010 also involved UK GDP growth being driven by an increase in household debt, which did not come to pass, probably explaining quite a bit of the failure of Osborne's deficit reduction.

Thus the economic outlook for the UK appears to stand on a choice between increasing household debt, or increasing government debt. This is not a healthy situation.

A report published today by the Public Administration Select Committee has found that CCHQ were wrong to ask Special Advisers to campaign for the party in the Rochester by-election. Theresa May’s SpAd Nick Timothy was dropped from the candidates list in a major internal Tory row after he argued that demands from Grant Shapps for SpAds to take part in telephone canvassing were against their Code of Conduct. The report finds:

“We therefore conclude that any direction to a Special Adviser to conduct telephone canvassing was misguided, and that advice that such a direction or such canvassing was permitted under their Code and contract of employment was wrong in law… We recommend that Special Advisers should never again be confronted with directions or informal pressure that puts them in breach of the Code and of their contracts of employment.”

http://order-order.com/2015/03/23/top-may-ally-cleared-pasc-rules-tory-spad-telecanvassing-was-unlawful/

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boo hoo - poor Nige - he's so hard done by - he should be allowed to pick on all these people , throw bricks at them and have no comeback.

Don't worry about Nigel, UKIP's BFFs Britain First are going to sort out anyone who attacks Farage.

@V4VixVendetta: #BritainFirst
Going to intimidate families in their own homes by showing them that intimidating families is wrong http://t.co/LROjxReCUu

I wasn't aware it was Conservative policy to condone harassment of parliamentary candidates for promoting the platform of their (legal) party. By all means harangue him, heckle him, and take him to task for his views. People that attempt to assault politicians of any party should be put before the beak.

It isn't. Yesterday we saw idiots being violent and undemocratic.

The disturbing thing is UKIP are attracting similar idiots

Indigo said:

TGOHF said:

Indigo said:

TGOHF said:

Boo hoo - poor Nige - he's so hard done by - he should be allowed to pick on all these people , throw bricks at them and have no comeback.

Which bricks are these ?

Lol - good one.

Also lest we forget..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11489357/10-policies-Ukip-would-prefer-to-forget.html

"7. Better dress in theatres
"Ukip will encourage a return to proper dress for major hotels, restaurants and theatres – smarter dress is part of Britishness, although it is also a British virtue to encourage innovation in fashion.". (2010 manifesto)"

And that is a reasonable excuse to interrupt his family dinner or chase him down the street ? I think your moral compass might need some fine tuning.

He takes votes that "belong" to the Conservative Party. That's his offence.

Casino_Royale said:

Anyone else worried that Ed Miliband might outperform expectations in the first "debate" on Thursday?

No

Sean_F said:

Now, it's possible that a UK government might introduce laws that were similar to those that emanate from Bruseels; or it might not. But, either way, the decision would be in the hands of people who were accountable to the British electorate.

The problem I have with this is that it underestimates both the inclination of pols to agree with each, and their scope not to do so.

John Major's government, for example, didn't sign up to the Social Chapter, and he didn't have to leave the EU in consequence. Blair's capitulard government promptly did so and gained nothing. It's clear that both decisions, on an EU matter, were unaffected by our EU membership.

Likewise Lawson and Major's governments weren't signed up to the euro, but both came a hideous cropper from implementing the EU's exchange rate policy.

Things like the CAP are features of EU membership, so it's clear that absent the latter, there wouldn't be the former. I would call those treaty obligations, though, that kinda follow from the treaty.

Eg the Treaty of Tilsit reduced Prussia to 5 million heads and limited the army to 42,000 men. The statutes reducing the army to that size weren't French-decreed laws but consequences of the Treaty.

Is there anything in the way of domestic legislation that the EU has led and that a Westminster government would not eventually have adopted anyway? I struggle to think of many. Looking at the Tories, Labour and the LibDems, which of them opposes and would never have implemented the EU's green agenda or its human rights agenda? The instant any non-UKIP-inclined party got into power we'd have been signed up to the lot.

I haven't studied the matter at length but I suspect that this has always been the case EU or no EU. An obvious example of pols basing laws on what other pols think is the abolition of the death penalty, where there is no party one can vote for that would bring it back. I wouldn't choose to but many would, to whom no political party is listening.

slade said:

rcs1000 said:

antifrank said:

Up against it (evens to 2/1)

Sir Alan Beith (standing down, replacement Julie Pörksen)
Duncan Hames
Mike Hancock (expelled from party, replacement Gerald Vernon-Jackson)
Sir Nick Harvey
Michael Moore
Viscount John Thurso


At risk (1/2 to evens)

Paul Burstow
Andrew George
John Hemming
Julian Huppert
Mark Hunter
Charles Kennedy
Stephen Lloyd
Dan Rogerson
Adrian Sanders
Mike Thornton
Mark Williams
Roger Williams
Stephen Williams


Safe (1/2 or shorter)

Norman Baker
Tom Brake
Vince Cable
Alistair Carmichael
Nick Clegg
Edward Davey
Tim Farron
Don Foster (standing down, replacement Steve Bradley)
Martin Horwood
Simon Hughes
Norman Lamb
David Laws
Greg Mulholland
John Pugh
Bob Russell
Sir Andrew Stunell (standing down, replacement Lisa Smart)
Steve Webb

I think Vince Cable and Simon Hughes might both lose their seats, but I'd be reasonably comfortable that Huppert will hold his . It's also possible that the Viscount's personal vote will get him over the edge.

If you want a complete flyer on the LibDems doing slightly better than expected, than can I suggest Bradford East?

I gather Lib Dems in Yorkshire are confident of holding all three seats - Hallam, Leeds NW and Bradford East.

Bradford East? Seriously?

Casino_Royale said:

Anyone else worried that Ed Miliband might outperform expectations in the first "debate" on Thursday?

Miliband has always been good at Q and A.

The only worry is he is bring interviewed by a Tory.

OblitusSumMe said:

A PWC report on personal borrowing. A couple of points I find interesting.

1. Household debt deleveraging appears to be over. Now stands at around 145% of income, and has been stable at that level for at least a year I think.

2. The OBR forecasts a large increase in household debt, to above the pre-crisis peak by 2020.

The second point is interesting, because the very first forecasts from the OBR in 2010 also involved UK GDP growth being driven by an increase in household debt, which did not come to pass, probably explaining quite a bit of the failure of Osborne's deficit reduction.

Thus the economic outlook for the UK appears to stand on a choice between increasing household debt, or increasing government debt. This is not a healthy situation.

Government debt-to-GDP is going to start falling sooner than people expect, as:

1. GDP is tracking higher
2. The sale of stakes in Lloyds and RBS, continued unwind of nationalised assets
3. The pro-cyclical effect of growth reducing spending, and increasing the tax take

Neither Cameron or Miliband are used to being interviewed by someone like Paxman, it's potentially dangerous for both of them. The Q & A part of the show will be fine.

@David_Herdson The only danger to Hussain in Bradford East is as yet not a declared runner.

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Anyone else worried that Ed Miliband might outperform expectations in the first "debate" on Thursday?

No

Why?

Could do with Sterling weakening for exports sold in Euros :P

Artist said:

Neither Cameron or Miliband are used to being interviewed by someone like Paxman, it's potentially dangerous for both of them. The Q & A part of the show will be fine.

Paxman isn't the interviewer he used to be. You have to really live and breath the politics, know all the facts and figures in order to be able to catch out well briefed and prepped politicians. The last year on Newsnight, he was a shadow of his former self.

@tnewtondunn: Revealing column by @Kevin_Maguire today; risk-averse Mili now happy to come 2nd at #GE2015 and take No10 when Cam's Queen's Speech falls.

dr_spyn said:

How many of the Farage pub visitors were adding Je Suis Charlie to their tweets?

None, I should think.

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.

One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....

Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?

In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.

I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.

The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.

You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?

Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boo hoo - poor Nige - he's so hard done by - he should be allowed to pick on all these people , throw bricks at them and have no comeback.

Don't worry about Nigel, UKIP's BFFs Britain First are going to sort out anyone who attacks Farage.

@V4VixVendetta: #BritainFirst
Going to intimidate families in their own homes by showing them that intimidating families is wrong http://t.co/LROjxReCUu

I wasn't aware it was Conservative policy to condone harassment of parliamentary candidates for promoting the platform of their (legal) party. By all means harangue him, heckle him, and take him to task for his views. People that attempt to assault politicians of any party should be put before the beak.

It isn't. Yesterday we saw idiots being violent and undemocratic.

The disturbing thing is UKIP are attracting similar idiots

well if the Law is a la carte why wouldn't they ?

Look on the bright side. England is becoming more like Northern Ireland every day.

Another Scottish subsample with Labour behind the Cons.

Tic toc for alot of SLAB MPs...

SMukesh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Anyone else worried that Ed Miliband might outperform expectations in the first "debate" on Thursday?

Miliband has always been good at Q and A.

The only worry is he is bring interviewed by a Tory.

Indeed. Surely Dave should be interviewed by a self-confessed Labour supporter. The bias in the current arrangement is outrageous.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boo hoo - poor Nige - he's so hard done by - he should be allowed to pick on all these people , throw bricks at them and have no comeback.

Don't worry about Nigel, UKIP's BFFs Britain First are going to sort out anyone who attacks Farage.

@V4VixVendetta: #BritainFirst
Going to intimidate families in their own homes by showing them that intimidating families is wrong http://t.co/LROjxReCUu

I wasn't aware it was Conservative policy to condone harassment of parliamentary candidates for promoting the platform of their (legal) party. By all means harangue him, heckle him, and take him to task for his views. People that attempt to assault politicians of any party should be put before the beak.

It isn't. Yesterday we saw idiots being violent and undemocratic.

The disturbing thing is UKIP are attracting similar idiots

well if the Law is a la carte why wouldn't they ?

Look on the bright side. England is becoming more like Northern Ireland every day.

I'll buy you a bowler hat and we can pick on Neil.

chestnut said:

SouthamObserver said:

PR to save the Union.

It looks like after the next GE it will only be the Tories that oppose it.

Why would the SNP want it? Who on the left will argue that UKIP should get 65-130 MPs?

The end game here is clear and has been since last September.

Super Devomax (short of independence) + EV4EL

A Tory/SNP carve up.

Shortly after I joined PB - may be 2 years ago - I wrote a header on that very basis: the way to save the union was to learn the lessons of Ireland and make a full and final settlement rather than grudgingly fight for every inch.

*burnishes crystal ball*

SouthamObserver said:

SMukesh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Anyone else worried that Ed Miliband might outperform expectations in the first "debate" on Thursday?

Miliband has always been good at Q and A.

The only worry is he is bring interviewed by a Tory.

Indeed. Surely Dave should be interviewed by a self-confessed Labour supporter. The bias in the current arrangement is outrageous.

It is hosted by Paxman and Burley it is not? Kay Burley spent many a weekend at Chequers when Tony Blair was in power.

I personally wouldn't have had Paxman, not only because of all this rumbling about being Tory candidate for mayor, but he is past his peak / lost his interest in the game.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boo hoo - poor Nige - he's so hard done by - he should be allowed to pick on all these people , throw bricks at them and have no comeback.

Don't worry about Nigel, UKIP's BFFs Britain First are going to sort out anyone who attacks Farage.

@V4VixVendetta: #BritainFirst
Going to intimidate families in their own homes by showing them that intimidating families is wrong http://t.co/LROjxReCUu

I wasn't aware it was Conservative policy to condone harassment of parliamentary candidates for promoting the platform of their (legal) party. By all means harangue him, heckle him, and take him to task for his views. People that attempt to assault politicians of any party should be put before the beak.

It isn't. Yesterday we saw idiots being violent and undemocratic.

The disturbing thing is UKIP are attracting similar idiots

well if the Law is a la carte why wouldn't they ?

Look on the bright side. England is becoming more like Northern Ireland every day.

I'll buy you a bowler hat and we can pick on Neil.

I have a bowler hat. Definitely my worst fashion faux pas

Was it a Clockwork Orange fancy dress ?

stodge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 33 (-1), Con 31 (-), LD 9 (-), UKIP 16 (-1), Greens 5 (-), Others 6 (+1). Tables here: http://t.co/yaMi0HIXBO

Back to 64% for the duopoly and not much sign of a Budget anything there.

My own view is that Populus have moved from weighting UKIP too harshly to weighting them too generously.

david_herdson said:

Financier said:

From LaboutList Today:

" Speaking of tricky situations - Ed Miliband is in Scotland this morning. He'll no doubt be question on the Salmond remarks (jumped on by the right-wing press) that the SNP would try and get concessions to a Labour budget, and back Labour on a vote by vote basis. One things Salmond wants is for HS2 to start in Scotland, but using infrastructure projects as bartering chips seems like the opposite of good government. And it's worth noting - again - that the SNP worked with the Tories from 2007-2011 in the Scottish Parliament, and that between 2005 and 2010, SNP MPs voted with the Tories on 88% of Finance Bills.

I'm not saying they're Tartan Tories - but I am saying that the idea that they won't work with the Tories is fanciful. And Anthony Painter outlined an all too-plausible Tory/SNP deal this weekend. A new ICM poll this morning shows just how far Scottish Labour have fallen, with the SNP still holding a 16 point lead."

There is no chance whatsoever of the SNP propping up the Conservatives in Westminster.

- Sturgeon has explicitly ruled it out.
- It would in a stroke alienate all the culturally anti-Tory voters they've just picked up from Labour.
- It would run counter to all their current policy direction.
- They'd take a load of flack for the austerity measures (they'd get this to an extent from propping up Labour but nothing like as much).

There is all the difference in the world between being a SNP government that does deals with the Tories and being an SNP minority party that does deals with a Tory government.

I'd agree with you in general re: propping up a government

However, I could see a one-time SuperMax/EVEL deal being acceptable to SNP voters: they get the best deal for themselves that they could possibly negotiate.

Sean_F said:

stodge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 33 (-1), Con 31 (-), LD 9 (-), UKIP 16 (-1), Greens 5 (-), Others 6 (+1). Tables here: http://t.co/yaMi0HIXBO

Back to 64% for the duopoly and not much sign of a Budget anything there.

My own view is that Populus have moved from weighting UKIP too harshly to weighting them too generously.

Populus has no clue what UKIP support is tbh.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

He takes votes that "belong" to the Conservative Party. That's his offence.

Eh? It wasn't Conservative activists or supporters who took part in the Sunday's despicable intimidation.

Look at the reaction from @TGOHF when Tim Aker was ethnically baited and Farages family were harassed

They need to 'man up'

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

@David_Herdson The only danger to Hussain in Bradford East is as yet not a declared runner.

I think this might be one of the surprises of the evening - but I'm keeping my sources to myself.

There are a number of special circumstances in Bradford East - some public, some not. If the cards fall right David Ward could possibly hold on.

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boo hoo - poor Nige - he's so hard done by - he should be allowed to pick on all these people , throw bricks at them and have no comeback.

Don't worry about Nigel, UKIP's BFFs Britain First are going to sort out anyone who attacks Farage.

@V4VixVendetta: #BritainFirst
Going to intimidate families in their own homes by showing them that intimidating families is wrong http://t.co/LROjxReCUu

I wasn't aware it was Conservative policy to condone harassment of parliamentary candidates for promoting the platform of their (legal) party. By all means harangue him, heckle him, and take him to task for his views. People that attempt to assault politicians of any party should be put before the beak.

It isn't. Yesterday we saw idiots being violent and undemocratic.

The disturbing thing is UKIP are attracting similar idiots

well if the Law is a la carte why wouldn't they ?

Look on the bright side. England is becoming more like Northern Ireland every day.

I'll buy you a bowler hat and we can pick on Neil.

I have a bowler hat. Definitely my worst fashion faux pas

Was it a Clockwork Orange fancy dress ?

You know me so well.

Actually at what point do Labour (In Scotland) change their line from "The biggest party forms the Government" to "We won't form a Government if we aren't the biggest party"...

Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks · 30m 30 minutes ago
@LadPolitics Any chance of any markets on who will "win" the debates?


Ladbrokes Politics ‏@LadPolitics · 1m1 minute ago
@AlastairMeeks Yep, will be there shortly. We settle on immediate YouGov debate polling.

rcs1000 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

A PWC report on personal borrowing. A couple of points I find interesting.

1. Household debt deleveraging appears to be over. Now stands at around 145% of income, and has been stable at that level for at least a year I think.

2. The OBR forecasts a large increase in household debt, to above the pre-crisis peak by 2020.

The second point is interesting, because the very first forecasts from the OBR in 2010 also involved UK GDP growth being driven by an increase in household debt, which did not come to pass, probably explaining quite a bit of the failure of Osborne's deficit reduction.

Thus the economic outlook for the UK appears to stand on a choice between increasing household debt, or increasing government debt. This is not a healthy situation.

Government debt-to-GDP is going to start falling sooner than people expect, as:

1. GDP is tracking higher
2. The sale of stakes in Lloyds and RBS, continued unwind of nationalised assets
3. The pro-cyclical effect of growth reducing spending, and increasing the tax take

My naive reading though is that the OBR are expecting household debt and household incomes to both grow strongly. If they don't then that puts 1 and 3 in your list at risk, and government debt keeps on rising, does it not?

If they do then we're just replacing government debt with household debt, and that didn't work out too well for us in earlier years.

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

david_herdson said:

Financier said:

From LaboutList Today:

" Speaking of tricky situations - Ed Miliband is in Scotland this morning. He'll no doubt be question on the Salmond remarks (jumped on by the right-wing press) that the SNP would try and get concessions to a Labour budget, and back Labour on a vote by vote basis. One things Salmond wants is for HS2 to start in Scotland, but using infrastructure projects as bartering chips seems like the opposite of good government. And it's worth noting - again - that the SNP worked with the Tories from 2007-2011 in the Scottish Parliament, and that between 2005 and 2010, SNP MPs voted with the Tories on 88% of Finance Bills.

I'm not saying they're Tartan Tories - but I am saying that the idea that they won't work with the Tories is fanciful. And Anthony Painter outlined an all too-plausible Tory/SNP deal this weekend. A new ICM poll this morning shows just how far Scottish Labour have fallen, with the SNP still holding a 16 point lead."

There is no chance whatsoever of the SNP propping up the Conservatives in Westminster.

- Sturgeon has explicitly ruled it out.
- It would in a stroke alienate all the culturally anti-Tory voters they've just picked up from Labour.
- It would run counter to all their current policy direction.
- They'd take a load of flack for the austerity measures (they'd get this to an extent from propping up Labour but nothing like as much).

There is all the difference in the world between being a SNP government that does deals with the Tories and being an SNP minority party that does deals with a Tory government.

I'd agree with you in general re: propping up a government

However, I could see a one-time SuperMax/EVEL deal being acceptable to SNP voters: they get the best deal for themselves that they could possibly negotiate.

You need to get out of the mentality of viewing various deals in reasonable terms.

Anything which keeps Dave in won't be done by the Nats, even another referendum in 2016 combined with FFA (Which won't be offered).

Labour are more likely to abstain the Queen's speech with a "Conservatives have more seats, we lost; it's time to take our defeat with good grace" than the SNP.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/miliband-rules-out-forming-a-government-2015031796342 probably more close to the truth than the Mash realises !

You're not the only one thinking along those lines, how accurately in the event remains to be seen.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/more-free-help-for-the-uk-press/#more-68721

Populus: Sampling Fri-Sun. Labour slightly flattered this time by higher certainty to vote, but basically it's a tie/tiny Lab lead as per usual. Intrigued by the 1% who are voting for someone other than Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green, SNP, Plaid, or BNP - some people are just so hard to please. Respect? Monster Raving Loony? Merbyon?

Bond_James_Bond said:

A remark which shows you've not thought about the matter.

Leaving the EU but selling, for example, financial services into it will require observance of all regulations and standards applicable in the EU. Just like now, except that we won't be able to contribute to what goes in the standard.

If the EU comes up with some standard that makes, oh, commodity futures markets basically unworkable - which is quite possible since the other 26 countries have perhaps 2 or 3 commodity futures markets so nobody much will care if their commodities industry disappeared - then that bit of our economy is out of business.

Likewise anything else we wanted to sell.

British citizens retired to Spain will find themselves chucked out like Italian bankers will be chucked out of the City. Unless, of course, the free movement of peoples bit continues.

This is a good example of what will likely happen in your commodity business example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar

Commodity futures have an important role to play in the industry, and so will continue to exist.

SMukesh said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

SMukesh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Anyone else worried that Ed Miliband might outperform expectations in the first "debate" on Thursday?

Miliband has always been good at Q and A.

The only worry is he is bring interviewed by a Tory.

Indeed. Surely Dave should be interviewed by a self-confessed Labour supporter. The bias in the current arrangement is outrageous.

It is hosted by Paxman and Burley it is not? Kay Burley spent many a weekend at Chequers when Tony Blair was in power.

I personally wouldn't have had Paxman, not only because of all this rumbling about being Tory candidate for mayor, but he is past his peak / lost his interest in the game.

Has Kay Burley said she is a Labour supporter? If so, that would balance out Paxman.

She is / was a huge fan of Tony Blair....

"Kay Burley is very proud of her former friendships in the corridors of power. ‘We were as likely to have the Prime Minister on the phone as the window cleaner saying he wanted to come round,’ the Sky News presenter boasts. ‘We’d get invited to Chequers for the weekend or we’d be in Downing Street.’ "

You can go and check for yourself how many weekends she spent at Chequers, its not a huge secret.

I personally would prefer the best interviewers to do the job. Neither Paxman nor Burley are, regardless of their political leanings.

Kay Burley was literally having an orgasm when broadcasting the Brown-Duffy episode.

She knows which side of her bread is buttered.

By the same token, I can link to a million youtube clips of Paxman completely destroying Tories.

It a dull argument, as neither should be doing the debates, as they aren't the best people for the job.

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

SMukesh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Anyone else worried that Ed Miliband might outperform expectations in the first "debate" on Thursday?

Miliband has always been good at Q and A.

The only worry is he is bring interviewed by a Tory.

Indeed. Surely Dave should be interviewed by a self-confessed Labour supporter. The bias in the current arrangement is outrageous.

It is hosted by Paxman and Burley it is not? Kay Burley spent many a weekend at Chequers when Tony Blair was in power.

I personally wouldn't have had Paxman, not only because of all this rumbling about being Tory candidate for mayor, but he is past his peak / lost his interest in the game.

Has Kay Burley said she is a Labour supporter? If so, that would balance out Paxman.

She is / was a huge fan of Tony Blair....

"Kay Burley is very proud of her former friendships in the corridors of power. ‘We were as likely to have the Prime Minister on the phone as the window cleaner saying he wanted to come round,’ the Sky News presenter boasts. ‘We’d get invited to Chequers for the weekend or we’d be in Downing Street.’ "

You can go and check for yourself how many weekends she spent at Chequers, its not a huge secret.

I personally would prefer the best interviewers to do the job. Neither Paxman nor Burley are, regardless of their political leanings.

Pretty much the entire Tory high command are huge fans of Tony Blair. It does not make them Labour supporters. Paxman, though, is a self-confessed Tory.

OblitusSumMe said:

A PWC report on personal borrowing. A couple of points I find interesting.

1. Household debt deleveraging appears to be over. Now stands at around 145% of income, and has been stable at that level for at least a year I think.

2. The OBR forecasts a large increase in household debt, to above the pre-crisis peak by 2020.

The second point is interesting, because the very first forecasts from the OBR in 2010 also involved UK GDP growth being driven by an increase in household debt, which did not come to pass, probably explaining quite a bit of the failure of Osborne's deficit reduction.

Thus the economic outlook for the UK appears to stand on a choice between increasing household debt, or increasing government debt. This is not a healthy situation.

But isn't it just the mathematical consequence of running a BOP deficit?

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

SMukesh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Anyone else worried that Ed Miliband might outperform expectations in the first "debate" on Thursday?

Miliband has always been good at Q and A.

The only worry is he is bring interviewed by a Tory.

Indeed. Surely Dave should be interviewed by a self-confessed Labour supporter. The bias in the current arrangement is outrageous.

It is hosted by Paxman and Burley it is not? Kay Burley spent many a weekend at Chequers when Tony Blair was in power.

I personally wouldn't have had Paxman, not only because of all this rumbling about being Tory candidate for mayor, but he is past his peak / lost his interest in the game.

Has Kay Burley said she is a Labour supporter? If so, that would balance out Paxman.

She is / was a huge fan of Tony Blair....

"Kay Burley is very proud of her former friendships in the corridors of power. ‘We were as likely to have the Prime Minister on the phone as the window cleaner saying he wanted to come round,’ the Sky News presenter boasts. ‘We’d get invited to Chequers for the weekend or we’d be in Downing Street.’ "

You can go and check for yourself how many weekends she spent at Chequers, its not a huge secret.

I personally would prefer the best interviewers to do the job. Neither Paxman nor Burley are, regardless of their political leanings.

Pretty much the entire Tory high command are huge fans of Tony Blair. It does not make them Labour supporters. Paxman, though, is a self-confessed Tory.

Does that mean you'll interrupt his Sunday lunch or something.

If we ban presenters for their political views there'll be nobody on TV.

Alanbrooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Like many journalists, I'm puzzled by Ed Miliband's decision to take part in the 16h April debate with Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon. I'd have thought that would be a format he'd want to avoid at all costs, especially at a critical time in the campaign.

It's a win-win.

They all get the chance to shout evil Tory and then Ed goes for the sympathy vote as Nicola orders him around.

Hmm, maybe. More likely they all get the chance to shout 'evil Tory cuts' (with Nige grinning in the background and looking avuncular), and then Natalie, Leanne and Nicola gang up on Ed pointing out that Labour would do much the same. Admittedly Ms Bennett might make Ed look vaguely sensible but Nicola is a different kettle of fishwife altogether.

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

Clearly it suits the Tories to talk up Salmond controlling Miliband, just as it suits Labour to talk up the Tories raising VAT.

One has a basis in fact, the other is just a groundless Labour smear....

Groundless in the sense that the last two times the Tories won an election they put up VAT after saying that they wouldn't?

In the same way that every Labour government has left office with a high national debt than when it came to power, and worse unemployment.

I would expect the Tories to make such points strongly.

The difference is one is a generic "competence" argument, the other is a specific accusation that they are continuing to make despite denials: i.e. they are claiming that the Tories have a ultra secret plan and are lying to the electorate about it.

You mean the way they denied it in 1992 and 2010?

Presumably, on the same basis we can expect the Tories not to claim that Labour will do stuff they have specifically denied they will do.

The Tories said they had 'no plans'. Certainly disingenious, but not possible to prove it was a lie.