politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hurdles Hillary has to surmount are getting higher

Lolz

tfw you've had a skinful and some geezer's eyeing up your bird https://t.co/aPfrDz6Yrv

another_richard said:

The full 2015 exports data has now been issued by the ONS:

2009 399bn
2010 444bn
2011 497bn
2012 502bn - George Osborne announces a trillion pound export target in his Budget
2013 521bn
2014 513bn
2015 512bn

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=IKBH&dataset=mret&table-id=A01

On a quarterly basis exports have gone from 128bn and rising in 2012q2 to 127bn and falling in 2015q4.

Am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising exports in 2012 and decided to jump of the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?

So no march of makers, no export surge, no retention of AAA, no eliminating the deficit, no stopping the banks being too big to fail but a "near excellent" chancellor ?

LOL

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Wanderer said:

This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.

What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.

Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?

The reason he sounds ridiculous is he's campaigning with such a weak hand.

And his poker face tells everyone he has a pair of threes....

Nah, he's not got as much as a pair. He's got a high 8 at best.

He's got some cards, cuz he has stacked the deck - only he can speak out. And the Referendum happens when he says it happens. And he does have GCHQ on his side, so he can look at everyones hand.

But he should stick to playing Angry Birds.

Innocent_Abroad said:

My thanks to Hertsmere Pubgoer and Rob D. It looks to me as though the referendum result will be reported at a fairly small (? constituency) level, in which case I repeat my view that Remain will win on the back of Celtic and big city votes, whilst Leave takes Middle England.

If I'm right about that, there should be some real fun on here.

In the meantime, another question for nerds: what proportion of the electorate are expats? (It sometimes feels as though half the Peebies are...)

It will be just like 2005-10 and expect incoming Guido/PB whining about Wee Jock Dickwit McBroon Tractor Stats Wot Won It

david_herdson said:

asjohnstone said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...

If Scotland is a precedent, and I think it is, then on a regional basis by local authority

That was also the case for the AV referendum. Still TBD officially though.

Thank you, David. That's what I'd deduced from what I hadn't heard or read. If Cammo has the brains Eton gave him he'll only allow a single UK figure. Or would that smell of fear?

Mortimer said:

Wanderer said:

Mortimer said:

Wanderer said:

This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.

What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.

Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?

Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.

And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.

I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!

I'm talking about the "air war" really.

Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.

You're either underestimating the amount of substantive policy that was in the manifesto, and therefore the basis of our campaign, or over-estimating the renegotiation.

This current rubbish from Cameron is as if we're running an election campaign with only the Salmond/Miliband Poster to go on.

Or worse - a stone tablet inscribed with his EU negotiation successes...

Tissue_Price said:

The simplest bet on David's logic is just to lay the Democrats at around 1.66 on Betfair, though this market is currently a little less liquid than the main named person markets.

Trump is really fishing in the same sort of voter pool as UKIP - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/i_can_t_hate_donald_trump_i_do_hate_the_republicans_who_ve_enabled_him.html . Just as UKIP voters last May came from both major parties, so does Trump's coalition - but he'll have the inestimable advantage of actually being the Republican candidate as well. Rust belt states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Michigan become far more viable for the Republicans under Trump.

That said, I personally still think the GOP will stop him eventually, given his unfavourables, but I agree he's value at present.

PS on the "useless tossers" bit, this interpretation is apparently incorrect - the delegates awarded by coin tosses were county delegates, not "statewide delegate equivalents" which is what the headline 701-697 result represents.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

"That said, I personally still think the GOP will stop him eventually, given his unfavourables, but I agree he's value at present."

How are they going to do that?

MarqueeMark said:

Mortimer said:

Wanderer said:

Mortimer said:

Wanderer said:

This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.

What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.

Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?

Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.

And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.

I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!

I'm talking about the "air war" really.

Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.

You're either underestimating the amount of substantive policy that was in the manifesto, and therefore the basis of our campaign, or over-estimating the renegotiation.

This current rubbish from Cameron is as if we're running an election campaign with only the Salmond/Miliband Poster to go on.

Or worse - a stone tablet inscribed with his EU negotiation successes...

YES! Much better metaphor.

Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

RobD said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

asjohnstone said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...

If Scotland is a precedent, and I think it is, then on a regional basis by local authority

Wasn't the AV one reported by constituency?
I may have mis-remembered.

Looks like it was by larger regions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

Must be false memory syndrome for me.
I was certain that I saw 'Hertsmere votes No' flash up on the screen during the results prog.

If you scroll down the wiki it has details by local authority. Hertsmere was 76% no

“lessons have been learnt” “lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”“lessons have been learnt”

Arrgggggh

Sandpit said:

Scott_P said:

Whatever financial formula was offered to accompany new powers would never be enough. However “no detriment” was defined, it would be disputed. Whatever financial risk was transferred, it would be too much. However a vow might be fulfilled, it would be a betrayal. We are bang on script.

That does not mean, of course, that the Nats are wrong to do their sums and find Scotland could be worse off as a result of any deal based on Smith’s recommendations. The problem is that this discovery contradicts every posture they have adopted for umpteen years about Scotland being a victim of the existing fiscal framework – i.e. the grievance agenda.

While “Full Fiscal Autonomy” was never the Nationalists’ ultimate demand, it was certainly their interim war-cry for a couple of decades. With the collapse in oil revenues, it has disappeared from their mantra. Confronted with the possibility of even a partial step in that direction, they are forced to admit that the cost could be too high and the risks too great. The roles are reversed and fallacies exposed.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-leave-us-scots-to-our-grievance-agenda-1-4029145#ixzz402AkK7Tk

The problem the Scottish government faces is that if they want to include the oil revenues going to them in the good times, they also have to accept the lack of them when the price falls. Any deal done now on the basis that oil revenues belong to Scotland will see them significantly worse off, which they will never be able to sell to the electorate.

What deal is being done on the 'basis' of oil revenues?

Sandpit said:

another_richard said:

The NHS seems to have unlimited money for the fun and games of its fatcats. Still I'm sure we're all reassuered now that 'lessons have been learnt':

' A married human resources director who was called a “whore” and then sacked after she spurned the advances of her NHS boss was awarded more than £800,000 in compensation yesterday.

Helen Marks, 50, lost her job at Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust after fending off the unwanted attentions of its chairman, Alan Baines. Angered by her rejection he then “colluded” with the trust’s chief executive, Steve Trenchard, to dismiss Mrs Marks from her £99,000-a-year post, an employment tribunal heard.

Mrs Marks has now received a payout of £832,711 in a scandal that has cost the taxpayer close to £1.5 million.

The trust, which spent £424,000 on legal fees and investigations, yesterday made a public apology and promised that “lessons have been learnt”.

Last summer an employment tribunal in Nottingham ruled Mrs Marks had been unfairly dismissed after being sexually harassed by Mr Baines and called a “whore”.

For his part in the scandal Professor Trenchard was suspended on full pay for seven months at a cost of £90,000.

He quit this week with a £75,000 payoff. '

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12153238/NHS-executive-who-was-sacked-after-turning-down-her-boss-is-awarded-832000-compensation.html

This sort of case should conclude with action being taken personally against the man responsible. If this were a private sector company, the shareholders would see to it that the perpetrator in such a clear case was fired without pension, if not bankrupted by the legal bill. It seems that those in high public sector office want the pay of a chairman but without the responsibility.

I doubt the shareholders of most PLCs give a toss about anything except the size of their dividend.

Innocent_Abroad said:

david_herdson said:

asjohnstone said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...

If Scotland is a precedent, and I think it is, then on a regional basis by local authority

That was also the case for the AV referendum. Still TBD officially though.

Thank you, David. That's what I'd deduced from what I hadn't heard or read. If Cammo has the brains Eton gave him he'll only allow a single UK figure. Or would that smell of fear?

Not sure it'd be practical. I think the reasons that the numbers were given by council is because those were the counting areas. That might be something to do with Returning Officers being appointed by councils and elections being run by local authorities but I don't know.

Whatever the legalities, for there only to be one figure nationally would mean people having to send the numbers through secretly. That's obviously open to leakage and would look terrible, especially if Remain won by, say, 51-49. Campaign scrutineers will be taking their own tallies anyway so it shouldn't be too difficult to get a ballpark figure for each area.

Mortimer said:

Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?

I have made it pretty clear that I am an admirer of Cameron, very pleased he is Prime Minister - and that he is pissing me off by insulting my intelligence with the crap he is peddling on the renegotiation.

I probably didn't need too much back from Brussels to have got me over the Remain line. But the tack taken on the negotiations (speaking as a commercial negotiator for 25 years) was amateurish in the extreme. You will never, ever get anything meaningful if they have no belief that you might recommend LEAVE. And then to be told he has actually got a great deal, when on some of the most fundamental issues that concern me, he has gone backwards...nah.

He is seriously tarnishing his image. And you say "the leadership". Everyone else is conspicuous by their absence right now. We were being told that Osborne was a central figure in the negotiations. But he seems to have been the Invisible Man in the last few days, as soon as it was clear the "renegotiation" had got the lead-balloon treatment. Cameron is out on his own, looking very exposed.

What I can't understand is why Cameron has rushed for a June 2016 referendum. If he was getting nowhere, he should have said "we are clearly getting nowhere - talk to me when you have mulled over the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, which have got ever nearer because I have nothing to sell my party. You've got twelve months...."

MarqueeMark said:

Mortimer said:

Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?

I have made it pretty clear that I am an admirer of Cameron, very pleased he is Prime Minister - and that he is pissing me off by insulting my intelligence with the crap he is peddling on the renegotiation.

I probably didn't need too much back from Brussels to have got me over the Remain line. But the tack taken on the negotiations (speaking as a commercial negotiator for 25 years) was amateurish in the extreme. You will never, ever get anything meaningful if they have no belief that you might recommend LEAVE. And then to be told he has actually got a great deal, when on some of the most fundamental issues that concern me, he has gone backwards...nah.

He is seriously tarnishing his image. And you say "the leadership". Everyone else is conspicuous by their absence right now. We were being told that Osborne was a central figure in the negotiations. But he seems to have been the Invisible Man in the last few days, as soon as it was clear the "renegotiation" had got the lead-balloon treatment. Cameron is out on his own, looking very exposed.

What I can't understand is why Cameron has rushed for a June 2016 referendum. If he was getting nowhere, he should have said "we are clearly getting nowhere - talk to me when you have mulled over the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, which have got ever nearer because I have nothing to sell my party. You've got twelve months...."

Well said. Your view is the same as mine, but articulated much better.

david_herdson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

david_herdson said:

asjohnstone said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...

If Scotland is a precedent, and I think it is, then on a regional basis by local authority

That was also the case for the AV referendum. Still TBD officially though.

Thank you, David. That's what I'd deduced from what I hadn't heard or read. If Cammo has the brains Eton gave him he'll only allow a single UK figure. Or would that smell of fear?

Not sure it'd be practical. I think the reasons that the numbers were given by council is because those were the counting areas. That might be something to do with Returning Officers being appointed by councils and elections being run by local authorities but I don't know.

Whatever the legalities, for there only to be one figure nationally would mean people having to send the numbers through secretly. That's obviously open to leakage and would look terrible, especially if Remain won by, say, 51-49. Campaign scrutineers will be taking their own tallies anyway so it shouldn't be too difficult to get a ballpark figure for each area.

I can't fault any of that.

If Hilary is the nominee she must be fav to beat either Trump or Cruz.Bloomberg is not going to stand if she is the nominee.Cannot see Saunders winning presendential race never mind nominee.Saunders might be VP choicee as might Kusich on republican.If there is value in the presidency market it lies in either Rubio or Bush or someone not currently in the race.

Alanbrooke said:

another_richard said:

The full 2015 exports data has now been issued by the ONS:

2009 399bn
2010 444bn
2011 497bn
2012 502bn - George Osborne announces a trillion pound export target in his Budget
2013 521bn
2014 513bn
2015 512bn

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=IKBH&dataset=mret&table-id=A01

On a quarterly basis exports have gone from 128bn and rising in 2012q2 to 127bn and falling in 2015q4.

Am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising exports in 2012 and decided to jump of the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?

So no march of makers, no export surge, no retention of AAA, no eliminating the deficit, no stopping the banks being too big to fail but a "near excellent" chancellor ?

LOL

Britain's hard-working farmers had better hope Osborne has a good gastroent; if owt goes wrong with his arsehole the nation shall be cast unto darkness.

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles

‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445093/Emily-Thornberry-s-promoted-family-sharp-elbows-despite-socialist-principles.html

Sheridan.....................

Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:

' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '

Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:

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

Just a kid from the wrong side of the tracks, dragged up by a single mother on benefits surely?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8-z30j8I8

FrancisUrquhart said:

isam said:

Mass immigration worked so well that we now might have to build separate prisons for specific religions (one, specific religion)

https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/698443754764685312

To be fair we had to do that in NI....

In the Guardian article, the crux of the problem is revealed though. The NI terrorists weren't really interested in recruiting other Protestants or Catholics in jails. You were either already in or they thought you were a waste of time. Instead, extremist Muslims are actively trying to recruit across the Muslim prison population. In France, they have already taken those they deem to be extremists out of general prison population into isolation.

Yes, but the difference is our government introduced the problem of Islamic immigration, the Irish problem already existed

I saw a Q&A between Matt Forde and Tommy Robinson last year and the Muslim gangs running British prisons was his main point of concern

Scott_P/Sandpit

Citing ex Labour MP Brian Wilson is hardly clever politics. He is a unifying figure only in the sense of being disliked by even every faction in what's left of Labour in Scotland.He now carries forward his old grievances from the pages of The Scotsman which is read by even less people that The Independent. If Wilson had been a recent Labour MP rather than the ancient mariner he would have been in the "totally useless" bracket, as current shadow Ministers describe the Scottish Labour's contribution.

Citing the history of North Sea Oil is also very bad politics. In the good years Scotland would have been in surplus to an "embarrasing degree", as a former Scottish Office economic adviser once wrote in a paper kept secret for thirty years. If they had done a Norway then they would be sitting on a cash pile of upwards of £100 billion not a share of a deiecit of upwards of 1.5 trillion. Most folk up here have some awareness of that.

Finally the UK Government is totally sunk on the fiscal lack of deal. They offered "no detriment" or more accurately "no financial disadvantage" to forestall independence. Now they are not delivering and will pay the price. All the NATS have to do is sit tight and fight the elections on a platform of the TORIES want to STEAL Scotland's money and LABOUR want to TAX the poor to pay for it!

Little wonder Sturgeon is winning out of the park.

MarqueeMark said:

Mortimer said:

Mark - as I think you were even more involved in your local campaign than I was in mine, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you feel similarly let down by the leadership?

I have made it pretty clear that I am an admirer of Cameron, very pleased he is Prime Minister - and that he is pissing me off by insulting my intelligence with the crap he is peddling on the renegotiation.

I probably didn't need too much back from Brussels to have got me over the Remain line. But the tack taken on the negotiations (speaking as a commercial negotiator for 25 years) was amateurish in the extreme. You will never, ever get anything meaningful if they have no belief that you might recommend LEAVE. And then to be told he has actually got a great deal, when on some of the most fundamental issues that concern me, he has gone backwards...nah.

He is seriously tarnishing his image. And you say "the leadership". Everyone else is conspicuous by their absence right now. We were being told that Osborne was a central figure in the negotiations. But he seems to have been the Invisible Man in the last few days, as soon as it was clear the "renegotiation" had got the lead-balloon treatment. Cameron is out on his own, looking very exposed.

What I can't understand is why Cameron has rushed for a June 2016 referendum. If he was getting nowhere, he should have said "we are clearly getting nowhere - talk to me when you have mulled over the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, which have got ever nearer because I have nothing to sell my party. You've got twelve months...."

Though I have a lot of sympathy with your position - in many ways I am in the same boat - I disagree with your conclusions. "Tarnishing his image" - well maybe, but from the other side it's "spending his political capital", which is something plenty of successful leaders forget to do, only to find that it suddenly leaches away.

And the June 2016 date is the obvious choice once you assume that (a) he wants to Remain and (b) he believes that the country will buy what he's selling.

The price is that the politically engaged see through all this - and of course all Conservative activists fall into that category. They will reduce their support of him, even if they still sympathise with his domestic programme (Gove's dilemma). But Cameron is stepping down anyway, so he personally never needs their votes again.

Look for Osborne to be good cop to Cameron's bad cop.

AlastairMeeks said:

Wanderer said:

Mortimer said:

Wanderer said:

This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.

What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.

Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?

Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.

And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.

I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!

I'm talking about the "air war" really.

Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.

I agree with that. I expect David Cameron has always played to win at all costs. Both sides are peddling nonsense (as in any campaign).
As a thought experiment, could some of the more broadminded Conservative Leavers explain what they would be comfortable hearing David Cameron say on behalf of Remain, bearing in mind that the Leave side is (naturally enough) also playing fast and loose to gather the votes in? After all, it's hardly a revelation that he's coming out for Remain.

If he had gone for what he set out in his Bloomberg speech, I would have seriously considered Remain. But now I feel let down by his pretence at eurosceptism. Best if Cameron had played fair and stuck by the "no comment from the cabinet" line until after the negotiations had finished. Instead he is creating massive problems inside his party.

Alanbrooke said:

another_richard said:

Alanbrooke said:

another_richard said:

The full 2015 exports data has now been issued by the ONS:

2009 399bn
2010 444bn
2011 497bn
2012 502bn - George Osborne announces a trillion pound export target in his Budget
2013 521bn
2014 513bn
2015 512bn

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=IKBH&dataset=mret&table-id=A01

On a quarterly basis exports have gone from 128bn and rising in 2012q2 to 127bn and falling in 2015q4.

Am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising exports in 2012 and decided to jump of the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?

So no march of makers, no export surge, no retention of AAA, no eliminating the deficit, no stopping the banks being too big to fail but a "near excellent" chancellor ?

LOL

Osborne only 'near excellent' ?

You're doing him down - he is 'near perfect'.

Anyway you forgot to mention his two great triumphs:

1) HOUSE PRICES ARE UP

even if home ownership is down.

2) THE CREATION OF THE OBR

just think of all those extra fatcat bureaucrats now employed.

Anecdote alert

I'm currently working in the double whammy of manufacturing and some of my customers supply construction.

One of my largest customers supplies the rail sector and has been waiting for a contract to be placed for 15 months now, Lots of consulatnts have been employed at up to £700 a day to review best value etc. and not surprisingly they keep finding more reasons to delay and issues to review. The management are shit scared of placing an order in case they get blamed and the whole fiasco rolls on. No construction work, no orders for suppliers, no improved rail jouneys for passengers. But it's pigswill time for the troughers in the middle. Net result "services" are up and production and construction are in the doldrums.

Never forget that the UK's 'business services consultants' are the envy of the world.

Just like the UK's bankers were.

If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.

OldKingCole said:

isam said:

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles

‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445093/Emily-Thornberry-s-promoted-family-sharp-elbows-despite-socialist-principles.html

Sheridan.....................

Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:

' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '

Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:

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

Just a kid from the wrong side of the tracks, dragged up by a single mother on benefits surely?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8-z30j8I8

Didn’t her father b@£$%^r off suddenly leaving his wife and the children in a considerable financial pickle?

er so he was completely untraceable working as an academic?

HYUFD said:

If Sanders is at 8/1 for the presidency that is great value as he not only is neck and neck with Hillary for the nomination but has a 9% lead over Trump in the RCP poll average for the general election

Nobody has attacked Sanders yet.
You'd have to believe that Americans will elect a socialist to the White House which is a stretch belief
Particularly versus Trump who shares most moderate voters' beliefs, perhaps in an undignified way but still not a socialist

HYUFD said:

There is no evidence Bloomberg hands the election to the Republican, the polls done so far show him drawing almost equally from Republicans and Democrats, the biggest difference is he would score well with independents with whom he polls best

We need to know more details as to WHERE Bloomberg draws votes before we can estimate what effect he would have.

For example taking Republican votes in New York but Democrat votes in Florida would certainly have a non-equal effect.

Hillary is repeating Nixon's campaign in 1968 when he won the presidency on the second attempt, sound familiar? He also faced a tough nomination battle against a favourite of the base, Ronald Reagan and indeed Reagan won the California primary. In the general election he beat Humphrey by less than 1%. Nixon, like Hillary an intelligent but uncharismatic and abrasive personality, was lucky that he did not face Bobby Kennedy in the general as he would probably have lost, Hillary is equally fortunate she is likely to avoid Rubio who would have most likely defeated her

TCPoliticalBetting said:

OldKingCole said:

isam said:

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles

‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445093/Emily-Thornberry-s-promoted-family-sharp-elbows-despite-socialist-principles.html

Sheridan.....................

Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:

' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '

Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:

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

Just a kid from the wrong side of the tracks, dragged up by a single mother on benefits surely?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8-z30j8I8

Didn’t her father b@£$%^r off suddenly leaving his wife and the children in a considerable financial pickle?

er so he was completely untraceable working as an academic?

Can’t recail the details but there was something rather odd about it. IIRC he went off to the US and was, while traceable, unable/unwilling/whatever to pay anything. Emily herself went to a comprehensive, reached the VIth form (or whatever it’s called nowadays) and consequently university.

But agree, it’s one of those situations one can spin in all sorts of ways.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as a principle does seem be honoured mainly in the breach nowadays.

david_herdson said:

It seems curious to me that you support Corbyn in Britain, who's clearly the Sanders' equivalent here, while backing Hillary there, who'd be Cooper's equivalent.

I agree with the other parallels. The US system makes it easier for outsiders to come in (other than UK mayoralities and PCC elections), so while Trump is more the equivalent of his Apprentice opposite number, Alan Sugar, the Boris analogy is about as close as it meaningfully gets.

No, I'd like Bernie to win, though he doesn't press my buttons as Corbyn does - not as left-wing, not IMO as personally nice (I'm biased by longstanding personal knowledge of Jeremy, who is just as selflessly idealistic as his fans think; Bernie seems decent enough but also the original Grumpy Old Man). But it would be wonderful if Bernie pulled it off.

EPG said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.

If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.

Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side

If you want to be taken seriously, give us those examples of where Cameron didn't "play fair" in the 2015 General Election.

EPG said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.

If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.

Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side

I am talking here about acting fair within his own party. Loyalty has to be earned to be given. After the referendum whoever wins Cameron has to go.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

OldKingCole said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

OldKingCole said:

isam said:

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Lady Smug the biggest hypocrite in Britain? Emily Thornberry's promoted her family with sharp elbows despite socialist principles

‘I’m not posh,’ she once told me. ‘I failed my 11-plus.’ I tried to tell her that plenty of posh people are unacademic — but by that point she had sailed off down the corridor, chin in the air. Despite early academic setbacks, our heroine made it to the University of Kent

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445093/Emily-Thornberry-s-promoted-family-sharp-elbows-despite-socialist-principles.html

Sheridan.....................

Of course Thornberry never had any advantages from her own parents:

' Thornberry was born in north Surrey to Cedric Thornberry, a Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College London, and his wife Sallie Thornberry, a teacher.[4] Her parents divorced when Thornberry was aged seven and she and her two brothers lived with her mother who later became a Labour councillor and mayor.[5] Her father went on to become a United Nations Assistant Secretary General and worked as a consultant for NATO.[6] '

Thornberry's father was also a Labour parliamentary candidate and human rights lawyer:

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

Just a kid from the wrong side of the tracks, dragged up by a single mother on benefits surely?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W8-z30j8I8

Didn’t her father b@£$%^r off suddenly leaving his wife and the children in a considerable financial pickle?

er so he was completely untraceable working as an academic?

Can’t recail the details but there was something rather odd about it. IIRC he went off to the US and was, while traceable, unable/unwilling/whatever to pay anything. Emily herself went to a comprehensive, reached the VIth form (or whatever it’s called nowadays) and consequently university.

I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?

I edited my orginal post, which I perhaps shouldn’t have done, as follows

"But agree, it’s one of those situations one can spin in all sorts of ways.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as a principle does seem be honoured mainly in the breach nowadays.

I’m by no merans sure of the details but, again IIRC, Emilys mother was teaching again before too long.

ComRes poll out tonight

Poll alert: We have a ComRes poll in @IndyOnSunday tomorrow, shared with @TheSundayMirror

https://m.facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/posts/1566146773708472

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?

Yes she did. In fairness to her and the likes of say, Prescott, going to university from a Sec Mod is a very significant achievement in itself (I know Prescott didn't go straight away).

However I have to say she doesn't strike me as very bright and her white van tweet demonstrated that she has no sense at all. Her appointment to SSoSfD suggests that Corbyn just wants an empty suit so he can dominate the brief himself.

That being said, he was also quite right to move Eagle after the Dannett farrago. I would have sacked her altogether, twin sister or no.

Wanderer said:

This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.

What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.

Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?

Yes Cameron is campaigning. And he is doing it whilst having specifically forbidden his opponents in his own party from doing so. I suspect he is making more than a few long term enemies by his behaviour right now.

MarqueeMark said:

EPG said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.

If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.

Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side

If you want to be taken seriously, give us those examples of where Cameron didn't "play fair" in the 2015 General Election.

No plans about tax credits.
Going after EdM's family.
Each more unfair than the tactics deployed so far in his silly referendum.
Politics isn't fair, it's about winning.

ydoethur said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?

Yes she did. In fairness to her and the likes of say, Prescott, going to university from a Sec Mod is a very significant achievement in itself (I know Prescott didn't go straight away).

However I have to say she doesn't strike me as very bright and her white van tweet demonstrated that she has no sense at all. Her appointment to SSoSfD suggests that Corbyn just wants an empty suit so he can dominate the brief himself.

That being said, he was also quite right to move Eagle after the Dannett farrago. I would have sacked her altogether, twin sister or no.

Being bright academically and having common sense are traits not necessarily always found in the same person

SeanT said:

EPG said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.

If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.

Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side

Remember that fight at that school in Crewe? The one you said "didn't really happen". The one that was "made up by Breitbart". The one that was "just a couple of kids in a scrap, happens all the time". Remember that one? That school?

OFSTED have just been sent in to do an emergency inspection

‏@BBCRadioStoke

Ofsted have carried out an unscheduled inspection of Sir William Stanier School, in Crewe, after a fight where police had to be called
11:26 p.m. - 12 Feb 2016

Whatever the truth therefore, that school is about to be labelled inadequate. OFSTED never bother with surprise inspections unless they've decided the result in advance.

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I had read that she failed the 11 plus but may be wrong. Why was he not pursued for financial support when he re-entered the country? Or was part living off the state a lifestyle choice?

Yes she did. In fairness to her and the likes of say, Prescott, going to university from a Sec Mod is a very significant achievement in itself (I know Prescott didn't go straight away).

However I have to say she doesn't strike me as very bright and her white van tweet demonstrated that she has no sense at all. Her appointment to SSoSfD suggests that Corbyn just wants an empty suit so he can dominate the brief himself.

That being said, he was also quite right to move Eagle after the Dannett farrago. I would have sacked her altogether, twin sister or no.

Being bright academically and having common sense are traits not necessarily always found in the same person

Fair cop OKC!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ComRes poll out tonight

Poll alert: We have a ComRes poll in @IndyOnSunday tomorrow, shared with @TheSundayMirror

https://m.facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/posts/1566146773708472

Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?

Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.

Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.

Yes, it's one fewer newspaper to commission opinion polling.

It's pathetic, laughable, unconvincing rubbish

Lots more to come

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

If Sanders is at 8/1 for the presidency that is great value as he not only is neck and neck with Hillary for the nomination but has a 9% lead over Trump in the RCP poll average for the general election

Nobody has attacked Sanders yet.
You'd have to believe that Americans will elect a socialist to the White House which is a stretch belief
Particularly versus Trump who shares most moderate voters' beliefs, perhaps in an undignified way but still not a socialist

Trump will have the white male vote, Sanders the Hispanic, female and black vote. Against Rubio Sanders would probably lose, Rubio has a narrow lead over Bernie in the RCP poll average but against Trump anything could happen and it is Trump who is likely to be GOP nominee. He is certainly great value at 8/1

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ComRes poll out tonight

Poll alert: We have a ComRes poll in @IndyOnSunday tomorrow, shared with @TheSundayMirror

https://m.facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/posts/1566146773708472

Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?

Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.

Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.

Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many

that just makes PBers sound saddos.

We are saddos!

Speak for yourself I pride myself that unlike you I'm not one of those posters who would drone on and on about a single issue or politician and just not let it go.

*cough cough "

Indigo said:

EPG said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

EPG said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

If Cameron had played fair and not started advocating Remain before the negotiations had finished and pushed for "Bloomberg speech" level of changes he would also have given himself a better chance of continuing as PM if Leave win. Today it now seems certain that if Leave wins, then Cameron has to resign or be faced with a no confidence vote by his own MPs and one in the HoC.

If he had played fair in GE2015, he mightn't have won a majority or perhaps even been PM.

Politics isn't fair sorry, some Peebies have only noticed this now that they are not on the millionaire/establishment side

I am talking here about acting fair within his own party. Loyalty has to be earned to be given. After the referendum whoever wins Cameron has to go.

No! If Remain wins, he has beaten the main strand of opinion in his party that never really supported him. Why does he have to go because of sore losers - normally, sore losers on PB get told that those are the rules and that the other side won?

I would have thought that was obvious... because there will be enough sore losers writing letters to the 1922 to trigger a leadership challenge, and he is hardly likely to stand in a leadership contest only to step down 6-12 months later anyway.

Why wouldn't he?
It would take a huge degree of self-sacrificial behaviour to step down, in the face of a challenge by the losing side, assuming that they get behind a Sceptic who would be the front-runner absent Cameron. Dare I say it would also be bad for the party to appoint a partisan from the losing side in the heat of its anger

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ComRes poll out tonight

Poll alert: We have a ComRes poll in @IndyOnSunday tomorrow, shared with @TheSundayMirror

https://m.facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/posts/1566146773708472

Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?

Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.

Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.

Yes, it's one fewer newspaper to commission opinion polling.

They're actually closing the Indy titles, or just stopping the print editions and going online-only? If the latter then there may be some scope to keep the polling series going, although TBH why any media org wants to spend money on VI polling right now defeats me.

If it is Clinton vs Trump vs Bloomberg, then it'll be:

A New York liberal Senator

vs

A New York liberal Jewish Mayor

vs

A New York liberal property developer

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ComRes poll out tonight

Poll alert: We have a ComRes poll in @IndyOnSunday tomorrow, shared with @TheSundayMirror

https://m.facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/posts/1566146773708472

Remember the days when we used to look forward to polls as if they had some significance ?

Yeah but this could be the final ever IOS/ComRes poll. Sad face.

Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many.

Plus it has some supplementaries on the EU referendum that will excite many

that just makes PBers sound saddos.

We are saddos!

Speak for yourself I pride myself that unlike you I'm not one of those posters who would drone on and on about a single issue or politician and just not let it go.

*cough cough "

My sole obsession is winding up the Nats and Kippers AV

I thought it was Olivia Wilde ?