politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Never mind Super Tuesday, get ready for Mega March

Backing up what David is saying CNN reporting that Hillary wants it sorted by the end of March : http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/clinton-sanders-super-tuesday/

I think the republican selection is sorted already. If Trump wins Texas (and I think he will) that is the end.

David Herdson on a Monday? The world doesn't make any sense.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

vs

I'M WITH HER

DavidL said:

Backing up what David is saying CNN reporting that Hillary wants it sorted by the end of March : http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/clinton-sanders-super-tuesday/

I think the republican selection is sorted already. If Trump wins Texas (and I think he will) that is the end.

Trump is more likely than not to miss out on Texas though that might actually benefit him. Cruz has gone all-in on his home state (which is itself telling), and if he wins it then will almost certainly carry on. That, however will split the field against Trump making his life easier.

If Cruz does lose Texas then the race would likely become a Trump-Rubio showdown. That would probably narrow Trump's lead but it'd still leave him with a healthy margin in the polls and - with the boost of delegates he'd receive in Texas if he won it - a huge lead in delegates.

A CNN poll today for the GOP nomination put Trump on 49% nationally. I suspect that's on the high side but he's almost certainly in the 40s now. Unless something's gone very wrong with the polling, you don't chalk up new record highs when you're on the slide.

The fact that Trump is still rising in the polls might also be a pointer to November. I've been saying for a long time that Trump was underrated in the betting markets for the nomination. I'd say the same now for the White House.

I see they are still counting votes in Ireland. STV: Nonsense on stilts.

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Herdson on a Monday? The world doesn't make any sense.

I wrote two pieces for Saturday but the second (this one) was held over, I'd guess because Mike didn't want three US-based threads in a row when a lot of the site discussion was about the referendum. That's only my surmise though.

Neither of them was the thread I meant to write though!!

http://order-order.com/2016/02/29/pro-migrant-campaigner-pelted-with-rocks-by-migrants/

Maybe one day the media might ask all these campaigners why they aren't lobbying the French government to do something. The way they go on, you would think they were in the middle of the nowhere in a war torn country, not a stones throw away from a major housing estate, sport facilities, shops etc.

Also the Guardian wing of the media bashed the hell out of "benefits street" as poverty porn, but don't seem to have an issue calling this place the "Jungle" (which I don't know, seems kinda of racist, especially if we are judging it by Rhodes Must Fall, can't call Harvard academics "Master" standards etc) and spending weeks on end shoving cameras in people faces.

FPT:

TOPPING said:

@SeanT

re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!

Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.

It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.

I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.

What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?

I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.

But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Backing up what David is saying CNN reporting that Hillary wants it sorted by the end of March : http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/clinton-sanders-super-tuesday/

I think the republican selection is sorted already. If Trump wins Texas (and I think he will) that is the end.

I think the Democrat race is done now, one of Clinton's aides seems to be carrying the can for her e-mails. Her victory in South Carolina was so overwhelming that it points not to a hundred (As I've seen mooted about), but on my model potentially near a two hundred delegate lead after Super Tuesday.

I am forecasting wins for Sanders in Vermont (Hillary might make the 15% cutoff, not sure) and Colorado.

Unfortunately for Bernie those states are totally drowned by VA, TX, MA, MN, GA.

Yes. To have been in with a should, Bernie should have been winning MA and competitive in MN. That he might well end up coming out of Super Tuesday with just his home state - no matter how big a lead he wins there - is as good an indicator as you need that the race is done, barring legal interventions.

@Richard_Nabavi It looks to me like HRC has several human shields lined up to take the fall in the e-mail scandal.

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

@SeanT

re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!

Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.

It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.

I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.

What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?

I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.

But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.

£55m? You'd leave the EU for that?

Give benefits of any sort.

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Herdson on a Monday? The world doesn't make any sense.

I wrote two pieces for Saturday but the second (this one) was held over, I'd guess because Mike didn't want three US-based threads in a row when a lot of the site discussion was about the referendum. That's only my surmise though.

Neither of them was the thread I meant to write though!!

Thread scheduling has been fun recently.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/marco-rubio-super-tuesday-suburbs-219940

There are no prizes for second place Marco!!

Yes there are - winner-takes-all rules don't kick in until March 15.

Not that the prizes will do him any good. I did think he might be a decent VP pick about two months ago. That prize has gone even if he does end up second in the delegate total.

tpfkar said:

SandyRentool said:

I see they are still counting votes in Ireland. STV: Nonsense on stilts.

A 2 day wait to actually get what you voted for. Seems a decent trade-off to me.

Except that no-one is going to get what they voted for. What they are going to get is lots of opposition parties.

Indigo said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

JohnO said:

Not on pb they aren't.

And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.

Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.

Also a legacy from when the party was losing?

As for centre right, spending as a proportion of GDP has come down by 5% and counting. Centre right 7nder my definition.

Yes, I remember Mr Thatcher "losing" those 3 elections... maybe you are too young

As to spending, you are basically applauding a 30st man for losing a few pounds, when you are that overweight anyone but a idiot (ie Labour) can lose weight, but Osbrown has cut far too little and spent far too much.

First six years of Thatcher
1979 42.75%
1980 44.54%
1981 45.29%
1982 45.56%
1983 43.20%
1984 42.59%

First six years of Cameron
2010 44.86%
2011 45.31%
2012 43.97%
2013 44.05%
2014 42.40%
2015 41.39%

Cameron and Osborne inherited a worse proportion spend of GDP than Thatcher did and have already got it significantly below what Thatcher did in the same period of time. But don't let facts get in your way.

Damn, I didnt realise that being right-wing was just about public spending, now I realise it has nothing to do with values or a program of government, all becomes clear.

So Labour 1975-79 was right-wing, who knew it..

What exactly is it that you're spluttering about?

(And of course Labour under Callaghan wasn't right-wing. The IMF policies imposed on the Callaghan government, on the other hand, were).

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

@SeanT

re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!

Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.

It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.

I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.

What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?

I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.

But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.

If we could also throw out criminals, potential terrorists, hate preachers, vagrant and other malcontents that are not citizens I might agree with you... and if we gave people applying at embassies and consulates an absolute priority over people arriving unlawfully. Most states have the ability to declare a non-citizen persona non grata and have them expelled from the country.

The people who arrive illegally are a tiny fraction of those who arrived legally.

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

JohnO said:

Not on pb they aren't.

And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.

Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.

Also a legacy from when the party was losing?

As for centre right, spending as a proportion of GDP has come down by 5% and counting. Centre right 7nder my definition.

Yes, I remember Mr Thatcher "losing" those 3 elections... maybe you are too young

As to spending, you are basically applauding a 30st man for losing a few pounds, when you are that overweight anyone but a idiot (ie Labour) can lose weight, but Osbrown has cut far too little and spent far too much.

First six years of Thatcher
1979 42.75%
1980 44.54%
1981 45.29%
1982 45.56%
1983 43.20%
1984 42.59%

First six years of Cameron
2010 44.86%
2011 45.31%
2012 43.97%
2013 44.05%
2014 42.40%
2015 41.39%

Cameron and Osborne inherited a worse proportion spend of GDP than Thatcher did and have already got it significantly below what Thatcher did in the same period of time. But don't let facts get in your way.

Damn, I didnt realise that being right-wing was just about public spending, now I realise it has nothing to do with values or a program of government, all becomes clear.

Sounds finances are the most important part of a centre right government yes.

Not sure what your definition of "values" is so no comment there. Wouldn't Trump the economics for me though.

So Labour 1975-79 was a rightwing government.

Healey cut 2% in one year, that took Osbrown an entire parliament.

Labour may not have been right wing, but Healey was at the far right hand wing of his party.

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

@SeanT

re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!

Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.

It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.

I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.

What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?

I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.

But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.

If we could also throw out criminals, potential terrorists, hate preachers, vagrant and other malcontents that are not citizens I might agree with you... and if we gave people applying at embassies and consulates an absolute priority over people arriving unlawfully. Most states have the ability to declare a non-citizen persona non grata and have them expelled from the country.

There is a cost and a risk associated with every action. The food you eat might be poisoned. The person who agrees to paint your house might be casing the joint. Your taxi driver might be on drugs

Better to limit the power of the state than to increase transaction costs.

At the risk of enraging (again) dear old @SeanT, this quote from a certain Mr S Heaney, written at the time when Ireland was being beaten up by the Germans to pay the debts of German banks, is apposite, I think, to the EU debate and also the US election.

There is a sense in which people want to feel that the political class is on their side. And they - or a proportion of them - don't feel that. Hence the Trumps and Corbyns and Sanders and the unease about immigration and so forth.

"We are not simply a credit rating or an economy but a history and a culture, a human population rather than a statistical phenomenon."

Politicians would do well, occasionally, to remember this.

Indigo said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

JohnO said:

Not on pb they aren't.

And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.

Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.

Also a legacy from when the party was losing?

As for centre right, spending as a proportion of GDP has come down by 5% and counting. Centre right 7nder my definition.

Yes, I remember Mr Thatcher "losing" those 3 elections... maybe you are too young

As to spending, you are basically applauding a 30st man for losing a few pounds, when you are that overweight anyone but a idiot (ie Labour) can lose weight, but Osbrown has cut far too little and spent far too much.

First six years of Thatcher
1979 42.75%
1980 44.54%
1981 45.29%
1982 45.56%
1983 43.20%
1984 42.59%

First six years of Cameron
2010 44.86%
2011 45.31%
2012 43.97%
2013 44.05%
2014 42.40%
2015 41.39%

Cameron and Osborne inherited a worse proportion spend of GDP than Thatcher did and have already got it significantly below what Thatcher did in the same period of time. But don't let facts get in your way.

Damn, I didnt realise that being right-wing was just about public spending, now I realise it has nothing to do with values or a program of government, all becomes clear.

So Labour 1975-79 was right-wing, who knew it..

A little disingenuous with your side-by-side comparison of the government spends there, Mr Thompson. Thatcher took over at the nadir of a recession, Cameron 2 years after. Adjusting for that we have:

45.29% vs 44.86%
45.56% vs 45.31%
43.20% vs 43.97%
42.59% vs 44.05%

That would argue that Thatcher indeed moved faster to get spending under control.

Those who lived through the late seventies and early 80s remember how quickly unemployment exploded from around 440k to 1.5m (5.2%-14.8% by 1986). That probably accounted for all the Thatcher increases in GDP spending.

FrankBooth said:

DavidL said:

They think its all over....

It is now. First first in ages.

Is that not blasphemous language for a Scot?

Nah. It was a mere scene setter for us becoming world champions in 1967.

SeanT said:

Cyclefree said:

At the risk of enraging (again) dear old @SeanT, this quote from a certain Mr S Heaney, written at the time when Ireland was being beaten up by the Germans to pay the debts of German banks, is apposite, I think, to the EU debate and also the US election.

There is a sense in which people want to feel that the political class is on their side. And they - or a proportion of them - don't feel that. Hence the Trumps and Corbyns and Sanders and the unease about immigration and so forth.

"We are not simply a credit rating or an economy but a history and a culture, a human population rather than a statistical phenomenon."

Politicians would do well, occasionally, to remember this.

I may not be a huge fan of his poems, but Heaney was a good man, and a wise old owl, and he was right about culture and nationhood.

Incidentally I met Heaney at the launch of his famous volume of assorted verse: The Rattle Bag. I got him and Ted Hughes to sign it. A treasured possession.

The evening was very memorable in many ways. I propositioned Joanna Lumley, for a start.

Was that the night you got hog-whimperingly drunk and stuck your hand up the skirt of your subsequent, but now ex, squeeze while on the rebound from Ms Lumley's crushing putdown?

FrancisUrquhart said:

http://order-order.com/2016/02/29/pro-migrant-campaigner-pelted-with-rocks-by-migrants/

Maybe one day the media might ask all these campaigners why they aren't lobbying the French government to do something. The way they go on, you would think they were in the middle of the nowhere in a war torn country, not a stones throw away from a major housing estate, sport facilities, shops etc.

Also the Guardian wing of the media bashed the hell out of "benefits street" as poverty porn, but don't seem to have an issue calling this place the "Jungle" (which I don't know, seems kinda of racist, especially if we are judging it by Rhodes Must Fall, can't call Harvard academics "Master" standards etc) and spending weeks on end shoving cameras in people faces.

Ah but you are forgetting that the campaigners are part of the "I want" generation. So since those in the camp want to go to Britain then it automatically follows that they are our problem, you see. They want. That's all that matters. The law, other people's wants or needs are all irrelevant to the very great "wants" of those in the camp.

"I want must get" seems to be the mantra.

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

@SeanT

re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!

Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.

It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.

I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.

What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?

I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.

But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.

If we could also throw out criminals, potential terrorists, hate preachers, vagrant and other malcontents that are not citizens I might agree with you... and if we gave people applying at embassies and consulates an absolute priority over people arriving unlawfully. Most states have the ability to declare a non-citizen persona non grata and have them expelled from the country.

The people who arrive illegally are a tiny fraction of those who arrived legally.

Yes I am well aware of that.

How many does it take to blow up a skyscraper in London ? or preach hate to our public ?

How many skyscrapers have been blown up in the UK by people who entered the country illegally? How many in fact by those who weren't born in the country?

How many would you like before you decide your policy is ill advised.

You appear to be adopting the approach of a bank manager that feels adding doors to his safe is a little expensive as he hasn't been robbed yet.

The first duty of government is the protection of its citizens

At least one. If we decide each imagined problem is real then we'd all be paranoid. The government is protecting it's citizens. While you can never be perfect the police and security services do a good job and should not be dismissed so flippantly by you.

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

@SeanT

re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!

Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.

It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.

I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.

What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?

I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.

But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.

If we could also throw out criminals, potential terrorists, hate preachers, vagrant and other malcontents that are not citizens I might agree with you... and if we gave people applying at embassies and consulates an absolute priority over people arriving unlawfully. Most states have the ability to declare a non-citizen persona non grata and have them expelled from the country.

The people who arrive illegally are a tiny fraction of those who arrived legally.

Yes I am well aware of that.

How many does it take to blow up a skyscraper in London ? or preach hate to our public ?

How many skyscrapers have been blown up in the UK by people who entered the country illegally? How many in fact by those who weren't born in the country?

How many would you like before you decide your policy is ill advised.

You appear to be adopting the approach of a bank manager that feels adding doors to his safe is a little expensive as he hasn't been robbed yet.

The first duty of government is the protection of its citizens

If that were true then the speed limit would be 20mph.

Has Dan been reading PB?

@DPJHodges: If Out want people to vote for Brexit they're going to have to explain what it looks like. Not what it doesn't look like.

Mr Herdson on a Monday? – err, it is Monday, right?

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MTimT said:

Indigo said:

Damn, I didnt realise that being right-wing was just about public spending, now I realise it has nothing to do with values or a program of government, all becomes clear.

So Labour 1975-79 was right-wing, who knew it..

A little disingenuous with your side-by-side comparison of the government spends there, Mr Thompson. Thatcher took over at the nadir of a recession, Cameron 2 years after. Adjusting for that we have:

45.29% vs 44.86%
45.56% vs 45.31%
43.20% vs 43.97%
42.59% vs 44.05%

That would argue that Thatcher indeed moved faster to get spending under control.

Those who lived through the late seventies and early 80s remember how quickly unemployment exploded from around 440k to 1.5m (5.2%-14.8% by 1986). That probably accounted for all the Thatcher increases in GDP spending.

Adjusting like that is disingenuous because a new governments policies tend to cause a slight uptick at first as they spend money to resolve the problems before it comes down. As happened tor both governments.

When Cameron took over all the talk was about a double dip recession so to dismiss the recession as two year old history is shall we say interesting.

That would be most unusual. Most government cut at beginning of their term because its unpopular and they want it done as far from the election as possible, then they turn of the spending taps closer to the election to buy votes... see Osborne and pensioner benefits.

It is quicker to boost spending than to cut. Even if you announce a cut on day one it may not show on the accounts for another year. If you announce extra spending on day one it can show in the account immediately.

chestnut said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

@SeanT

re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!

Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.

It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.

I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.

What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?

I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.

But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.

£55m? You'd leave the EU for that?

Give benefits of any sort.

The collaterals on this are enormous as well. Housing, school places, healthcare, transport pressures etc.

I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000.

Indigo said:

You could start by not having a free travel area with a group of countries which don't have any meaningful borders and are attracting several million illegal migrants per year some of which are known to be terrorists, and a significant number are claimed (by both terrorists and security sources) to be terrorists.

Good point.

That's why we don't have a free travel area with such a group.

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

http://order-order.com/2016/02/29/pro-migrant-campaigner-pelted-with-rocks-by-migrants/

Maybe one day the media might ask all these campaigners why they aren't lobbying the French government to do something. The way they go on, you would think they were in the middle of the nowhere in a war torn country, not a stones throw away from a major housing estate, sport facilities, shops etc.

Also the Guardian wing of the media bashed the hell out of "benefits street" as poverty porn, but don't seem to have an issue calling this place the "Jungle" (which I don't know, seems kinda of racist, especially if we are judging it by Rhodes Must Fall, can't call Harvard academics "Master" standards etc) and spending weeks on end shoving cameras in people faces.

Ah but you are forgetting that the campaigners are part of the "I want" generation. So since those in the camp want to go to Britain then it automatically follows that they are our problem, you see. They want. That's all that matters. The law, other people's wants or needs are all irrelevant to the very great "wants" of those in the camp.

"I want must get" seems to be the mantra.

Their getting stoned by the migrants is still a heart-warming story, though.

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

tpfkar said:

SandyRentool said:

I see they are still counting votes in Ireland. STV: Nonsense on stilts.

A 2 day wait to actually get what you voted for. Seems a decent trade-off to me.

Except that no-one is going to get what they voted for. What they are going to get is lots of opposition parties.

Changes from first pref:

+1 PBP
+1 IND
+1 G
+1 LAB
0 SF
-2 FG
-2 FF

So, not alot of difference from multi member FPTP.

What about single member FPTP?

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

@SeanT

re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!

Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.

It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.

I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.

What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?

I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.

But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.

If we could also throw out criminals, potential terrorists, hate preachers, vagrant and other malcontents that are not citizens I might agree with you... and if we gave people applying at embassies and consulates an absolute priority over people arriving unlawfully. Most states have the ability to declare a non-citizen persona non grata and have them expelled from the country.

The people who arrive illegally are a tiny fraction of those who arrived legally.

Yes I am well aware of that.

How many does it take to blow up a skyscraper in London ? or preach hate to our public ?

How many skyscrapers have been blown up in the UK by people who entered the country illegally? How many in fact by those who weren't born in the country?

It's almost certain that at least some of their ancestors arrived illegally. So, your point is moot.

No its not. It isn't illegal immigrants who are blowing up skyscraper. The key to tackle the threat of terrorism is a well funded and highly skilled intelligence and police service. Not scaremongering and scapegoating.

Too many people make remarks like that seriously so didn't realise you were joking.

Philip_Thompson said:

Too many people make remarks like that seriously so didn't realise you were joking.

is the usual method

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

It's almost certain that at least some of their ancestors arrived illegally. So, your point is moot.

No its not. It isn't illegal immigrants who are blowing up skyscraper. The key to tackle the threat of terrorism is a well funded and highly skilled intelligence and police service. Not scaremongering and scapegoating.

I would hope that security would have more elements than just intelligence and policing. In most safety and security systems, these tend to be smaller elements - hazard identification and removal/mitigation where possible, universal (i.e. all users) situation awareness of hazards, resilience, robustness, physical defence in depth, contingency planning, rapid emergency response and the training and education that makes all these work (the list goes on), tend to contribute much more to prevention and mitigation than interdiction.

I grant that in certain fields greater emphasis has to be on intelligence, but even in such fields, as bioterrorism, the aim surely should be on making the effects of any attack no worse than, say, a train crash than on trying to prevent all incidents.

rcs1000 said:

runnymede said:

'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000'

Make it £5000 and I suspect much of the current problem would go away. And if it doesn't, you make it £10000

Even if you made it just £2,000, you would have a massive effect. Actually paying money to be here would mean that only the most ambitious and hard working would want to come. We'd also net a really good profit that would enable you to lower taxes for most people.

The final advantage is that - unlike all the micromanaging solutions - it needs no bureaucracy and (as you say) if we still feel we're getting too many people we can raise the cost the next year.

Cayman Islands 10+ years ago had about 20,000 work permits and 35,000 nationals. Work permits charged up to £10000 a year, though some as low as £2000. No income or NI tax. All expat medical and schools had to be self funded. Worked fine, people who did not like it did not come or left.

Now if we just had a work permit charge, scaled by types or a % of salary.

Damn, I wish the losers would shut up about rerunning the result...

@jennirsl: .@NicolaSturgeon: Disastrous for UK to vote No. If do, of course Scots may have new ref.

@rcs1000


'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000. '

Excellent idea.

What if the UK government passed a law that benefits were only payable to UK & EU nationals if their families had a record of at least 5 years of tax contributions ?

The EU discrimination argument goes out the window ?

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MTimT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

It's almost certain that at least some of their ancestors arrived illegally. So, your point is moot.

No its not. It isn't illegal immigrants who are blowing up skyscraper. The key to tackle the threat of terrorism is a well funded and highly skilled intelligence and police service. Not scaremongering and scapegoating.

I would hope that security would have more elements than just intelligence and policing. In most safety and security systems, these tend to be smaller elements - hazard identification and removal/mitigation where possible, universal (i.e. all users) situation awareness of hazards, resilience, robustness, physical defence in depth, contingency planning, rapid emergency response and the training and education that makes all these work (the list goes on), tend to contribute much more to prevention and mitigation than interdiction.

I grant that in certain fields greater emphasis has to be on intelligence, but even in such fields, as bioterrorism, the aim surely should be on making the effects of any attack no worse than, say, a train crash than on trying to prevent all incidents.

Indeed you make my point that there is a plethora the government is doing.

Pure speculation. I hope you are right, but its pure speculation.

Whether it's enough is speculation. Whether the government is doing a lot is not. Of course no system is perfect.

SeanT said:

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

runnymede said:

'I think it is not unreasonable to ask non-citizens to pay an annual Services Charge of - say - £2,000'

Make it £5000 and I suspect much of the current problem would go away. And if it doesn't, you make it £10000

Even if you made it just £2,000, you would have a massive effect. Actually paying money to be here would mean that only the most ambitious and hard working would want to come. We'd also net a really good profit that would enable you to lower taxes for most people.

The final advantage is that - unlike all the micromanaging solutions - it needs no bureaucracy and (as you say) if we still feel we're getting too many people we can raise the cost the next year.

Its really what the Danes proposed last month which caused convulsions in left, about confiscating goods to pay for their board and lodging. Not the faintest chance of it happening in the UK, half the Tory party would have an attack of the vapours, never mind Labour.

It will happen here in the end. Nordic countries used to be the most liberal and welcoming of nations; under the pressures of migration, and with the rise of the populist right, that is changing very fast.

The irony is that because we have had centre right governments first refuse to sign up to Schengen and now refuse to join in with Merkel's madness that we are not under the same migration pressures.