politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As doctors stage their 3rd strike Ipsos-MORI finds that th

The ever-readable Labour List has this gem:

"A Labour fundraiser last night auctioned off a chance to go swimming with sharks... and Shadow Leader of the House Chris Bryant. It's not clear how much the prize went for, but the ominous description of the event as "once in a lifetime" may have depressed the final price somewhat."

I give you Stuart Rose and Korski. Remain are nothing without Cameron.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato_Says said:

Whilst I'm all for not whining, when the other side is playing unfair - it's legitimate to point it out. Otherwise they win.

Turning the other cheek doesn't win the war in politics. That's not whining - it's rebuttal.

That's wrong. The key to succcess is not to get into the mindset of even thinking to yourself that the other side are being 'unfair'. Instead the Leave side should be anticipating the attacks and putting in place solid defences, or, where that's not possible (and frankly it's a bit late now), trying to change the narrative to more favourable ground.

They are making such a hash of it that it's almost painful to watch.

NickPalmer said:

Sanders will give Clinton a generous endorsement

Providing he isn't robbed. We'll know if that's a possibility after next Tuesday. 255 delegate lead is my estimate for what Hillary needs to win. The polls forecast 411.

Re David HerdsonT

The white collar liberals comment was in response to MaxPB saying Clinton was in trouble with them.

There could be remnants of Reagan Democrats out there but the demographics have changed dramatically in the intervening 30 years and they are not as important as they were. I also really wonder how many of the type of blue collars that might go for Trump voted for Obama in 2008/2012.

I think Clinton is going to hold a much larger percentage of the Obama vote than Trump will of the Romney vote. The unknown is the number of extra voters each brings to the ticket - I would say few for Clinton and much more for Trump but I don't think it will be enough.

Seeing a lot of comment re the GOP VP - any tips on who thinks Hilary would go for?

Being relatively new to the site when I respond to a comment that is in a chain I am often told that my response is too long , perhaps some one can tell me how to get round this

America Elects
New Ohio poll:

Trump 41
Kasich 35
Cruz 15
Rubio 7

(CNN)

NickPalmer said:

MaxPB is increasingly and curiously insistent that he has a direct line to how all Sanders supporters think. So far as I know, we all have only anecdotal evidence, but although there are of course examples of every combination, I'd expect the vast majority of Sanders supporters to fall in line assuming the campaign stays as friendly as it has up to now. Sanders will give Clinton a generous endorsement, Clinton will acknowledge that Sanders has taught her things, and people will look at Trump/Cruz and rally round. Certainly the Sanders supporters that I know will vote Clinton vs Trump in a heartbeat.

The two weak points that Max identifies are foreign interventionism and blue-collar anti-establishment feeling. I agree that the former is a problem for middle-class liberals (I think it's a worry about Clinton myself), but when push comes to shove we mostly get over it, as Blair demonstrated in 2005. The latter is IMO going to be a bit marginal as a motivation to vote Republican. But we don't really know for sure.

The converse, whether Hillary supporters would vote for Bernie, is also uncertain. Most would, but quite a few establishment types would be very dubious after a few months of attack ads portraying him as the son of Brezhnev.

If the convention ends up really close with Sanders coming on like an express train but falling just short of victory, it's interesting to speculate what Hillary can offer him. VP hasn't been ruled out by either side, but it'd be odd to lavish a VP nomination on Vermont with its 3 electoral votes. A pledge of a leading role in a Clinton administration may be as good as it gets.

Sanders would do his cause more good bargaining for policy than position. Is there a post that could be offered him that would much advance the things that people are voting for? VP is just an honourable siding unless the president dies or resigns (though Hillary might like that as insurance against potential impeachments!).

The GERS figures are indeed truly horrible, far, far worse than anything the supposed "project fear" campaigners dared to forecast during the referendum. If the uncertainty and damage occasioned by potential independence and the transfer south of what is left of our financial services industry had been added we would have been looking at Greece in admiration at their fiscal sanity.

Sturgeon's response to this is frankly disgraceful: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35757787 Apparently, "This shows the foundations of Scotland's economy are strong and that we have a strong base to build our future progress upon."

It also explains why the absolute priority of the Scottish government in the recent negotiations was that the new fiscal autonomy rules would not make Scotland worse off. The tax base north of the border is, unfortunately, collapsing with the oil price and the drift of financial services southwards. We are left with a bureaucratic state that in terms of its dominance of the economy would put East Germany to shame.

We desperately need a government and an opposition that is focussed on running the country and making good some of the damage. But who believes that these terrible figures will move any votes?

JohnO said:

MaxPB said:

JackW said:

MaxPB said:

JackW said:

@MaxPB

I do so enjoy your fantasy musing on the upcoming President Trump.

Much like I did with other PBers with Presidents McCain and Romney and Prime Minister Miliband.

And I enjoy the complete lack of understanding you have of Bernie supporters, maybe you're just too old!

Clearly with Trump's attitudes on Hispanics, AA and women he's going to appeal to Sander's supporters. It's obvious that Donald's empathy plays well to the Bernie base there .... Well, it's a view.

Somewhat like Jezza's mob taking a kindly view of Nigel Farage and thus opting not to vote for Ed last year. It certainly has novelty value, I'll give you that.

You have just shown how little you understand Bernie supporters with that post Jack. Hillary already has the groups you mention on board. She doesn't have blue collar and white collar whites. Trump appeals to them on a very basic level that Hillary doesn't.

The Young Pretender takes on the Mighty ARSE.

One of them is going to be covered in confusion in November.

This Old Jacobite doesn't much like the anal-ogy ....

.@halfon4harlowMP: Number of civil servants based in London has reduced by 7,500 with savings of £2.8 billion for the taxpayer #COquestions

With this doctor's dispute being ratcheted up, Cameron's UK wide ratings and those of the Govt look likely to fall. If it is still going on into the referendum then Cameron's "trust" with the voters is likely to drop and REMAIN will lose some support. For these reasons I expect a move by the Govt with better terms, but is there a timetable that requires action by a certain date?

NickPalmer said:

The ever-readable Labour List has this gem:

"A Labour fundraiser last night auctioned off a chance to go swimming with sharks... and Shadow Leader of the House Chris Bryant. It's not clear how much the prize went for, but the ominous description of the event as "once in a lifetime" may have depressed the final price somewhat."

Swimming with Chis Bryant or the sharks ?!?

Plato_Says said:

I give you Stuart Rose and Korski. Remain are nothing without Cameron.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato_Says said:

Whilst I'm all for not whining, when the other side is playing unfair - it's legitimate to point it out. Otherwise they win.

Turning the other cheek doesn't win the war in politics. That's not whining - it's rebuttal.

That's wrong. The key to succcess is not to get into the mindset of even thinking to yourself that the other side are being 'unfair'. Instead the Leave side should be anticipating the attacks and putting in place solid defences, or, where that's not possible (and frankly it's a bit late now), trying to change the narrative to more favourable ground.

They are making such a hash of it that it's almost painful to watch.

For all the disunity in the various LEAVE camps, if this is the best that REMAIN can do with a single unified campaign enormous finances and the Govt machinery behind them, it does not auger well if LEAVE can pull together.

I also expect Cameron's rating to be dropping due to the backlash amongst Conervatives and the doctors strikes,

DavidL said:

We desperately need a government and an opposition that is focussed on running the country and making good some of the damage. But who believes that these terrible figures will move any votes?

They should change minds, but let's face it if someone already bought the SNP's argument they weren't paying any attention to the economics in the first place.

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

The GERS figures are indeed truly horrible, far, far worse than anything the supposed "project fear" campaigners dared to forecast during the referendum. If the uncertainty and damage occasioned by potential independence and the transfer south of what is left of our financial services industry had been added we would have been looking at Greece in admiration at their fiscal sanity.

Sturgeon's response to this is frankly disgraceful: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35757787 Apparently, "This shows the foundations of Scotland's economy are strong and that we have a strong base to build our future progress upon."

It also explains why the absolute priority of the Scottish government in the recent negotiations was that the new fiscal autonomy rules would not make Scotland worse off. The tax base north of the border is, unfortunately, collapsing with the oil price and the drift of financial services southwards. We are left with a bureaucratic state that in terms of its dominance of the economy would put East Germany to shame.

We desperately need a government and an opposition that is focussed on running the country and making good some of the damage. But who believes that these terrible figures will move any votes?

How long will English voters tolerate Scots getting £1400 more per head AND a fiscal deal where England has to bail the Scots out if they screw up, but not the other way round?

Another reason to support Leave! Vote Leave so Scotland gets its independence and let the EU subsidise them.

@FraserNelson: The Scottish government’s own figures demolish the economic case for independence, says @AlexMassie: https://t.co/g2FZDTcJYE

nigel4england said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

On Mark Carney. I really don't understand the problem. He was asked questions by the committee and gave pretty straightforward answers. Nothing he said wasn't true or made up, it's the manner of the uphill argument we face in the Leave camp. Instead of lashing out at Carney we should have concentrated on what he actually said and, more importantly, didn't say.

He said "the EU has been good for us". That statement is, without any shadow of a doubt, true. What he didn't say, maybe because he wasn't asked, is whether it would be good for us in the future. We should be making the argument that the good times for the EU are over, our RoW trade is growing by 4% long run and our EU trade is falling by 2% long run. It is no longer in our interest to be in the EU as it was when it was "good for us".

He said "leaving would cause uncertainty". Well of course it would, but again, we need to work on the message. Not all uncertainty is bad. We had 10 years of certainty under Brown, investment fell, the state became bloated and we lost our entrepreneurial spirit as a nation. Yes there will be uncertainty, but out of that we will get new activity, new opportunities to trade with the rest of the world which is growing a lot faster than the EU.

As for HMQ, honestly, who cares if some unelected person is in favour of leaving or remaining. I highly doubt that the Queen being in favour of Brexit is going to convince an IT worker who likes going on holiday in Italy to vote to leave.

I agree with this absolutely. It really is long, long past time that those for Leave started to make the positive case for it and stopped the whining. It is getting dangerously close to too late.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a positive case for Remain.

Vote remain and the British Isles will not be consumed by the wrathful Atlantic.

AlastairMeeks said:

If David Cameron is stuck for anything to say at this Prime Minister's Questions, there's a fair chance that this will make an appearance:

JohnRentoul · 32m32 minutes ago

This is an appalling story. How could any normal person want to be in the same party as this fool? http://order-order.com/2016/03/09/911-apologist-reinstated-as-full-labour-member/ …

Second thing he mentioned.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Plato_Says said:

.@halfon4harlowMP: Number of civil servants based in London has reduced by 7,500 with savings of £2.8 billion for the taxpayer #COquestions

I would be interested to know what period that saving is over as that equates to £373,000 per person.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Plato_Says said:

.@halfon4harlowMP: Number of civil servants based in London has reduced by 7,500 with savings of £2.8 billion for the taxpayer #COquestions

I would be interested to know what period that saving is over as that equates to £373,000 per person.

I would guess since 2010 which works out to £60k per year, makes sense if you include pension contributions and employer's NI.

JonCisBack said:

runnymede said:

'He said "the EU has been good for us". That statement is, without any shadow of a doubt, true'

If you look at the Bank's research on this, it is actually a bit thin. A lot of it is little more than a (slightly skewed) literature review and the crucial section where the Bank does argue that 'openness has increased ergo EU has been good' suffers from the major flaw of not really examining possible counterfactuals e.g. would 'openness' have increased anyway, perhaps even by more? The concept of 'openness' itself is also rather loosely defined.

And you are right that it is quite backward-looking overall. It is clearly designed to support the status quo (albeit not stridently) but doesn't make a very strong case for it.

Being in the single market has unquestionably benefited us.

A re-running of history where we had joined the common market in 1975, agreed to the rules around the single market in 1990s but NOTHING ELSE would be fascinating but impossible of course.

The key q for this whole referendum is whether we can hope to either be in the EU and not sign up to anything further, or leave and still get the benefits of the single market.

Probably neither is true, so neither of the referendum options appeals to me much :-(

So which is worse - isolation or sliding inexorably into a closer and closer political union? Arguments so far from both sides are deeply unedifying.

I still don't get the idea that being outside of a 28 country bloc along with the other 168 non EU countries including the biggest players in the world counts as 'isolation'.

Alanbrooke said:

nigel4england said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

On Mark Carney. I really don't understand the problem. He was asked questions by the committee and gave pretty straightforward answers. Nothing he said wasn't true or made up, it's the manner of the uphill argument we face in the Leave camp. Instead of lashing out at Carney we should have concentrated on what he actually said and, more importantly, didn't say.

He said "the EU has been good for us". That statement is, without any shadow of a doubt, true. What he didn't say, maybe because he wasn't asked, is whether it would be good for us in the future. We should be making the argument that the good times for the EU are over, our RoW trade is growing by 4% long run and our EU trade is falling by 2% long run. It is no longer in our interest to be in the EU as it was when it was "good for us".

He said "leaving would cause uncertainty". Well of course it would, but again, we need to work on the message. Not all uncertainty is bad. We had 10 years of certainty under Brown, investment fell, the state became bloated and we lost our entrepreneurial spirit as a nation. Yes there will be uncertainty, but out of that we will get new activity, new opportunities to trade with the rest of the world which is growing a lot faster than the EU.

As for HMQ, honestly, who cares if some unelected person is in favour of leaving or remaining. I highly doubt that the Queen being in favour of Brexit is going to convince an IT worker who likes going on holiday in Italy to vote to leave.

I agree with this absolutely. It really is long, long past time that those for Leave started to make the positive case for it and stopped the whining. It is getting dangerously close to too late.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a positive case for Remain.

Vote remain and the British Isles will not be consumed by the wrathful Atlantic.

Somehow it'll work it's way round Ireland. Or at least most of it!

MaxPB said:

OllyT said:

Re David HerdsonT

The white collar liberals comment was in response to MaxPB saying Clinton was in trouble with them.

There could be remnants of Reagan Democrats out there but the demographics have changed dramatically in the intervening 30 years and they are not as important as they were. I also really wonder how many of the type of blue collars that might go for Trump voted for Obama in 2008/2012.

I think Clinton is going to hold a much larger percentage of the Obama vote than Trump will of the Romney vote. The unknown is the number of extra voters each brings to the ticket - I would say few for Clinton and much more for Trump but I don't think it will be enough.

Seeing a lot of comment re the GOP VP - any tips on who thinks Hilary would go for?

Being relatively new to the site when I respond to a comment that is in a chain I am often told that my response is too long , perhaps some one can tell me how to get round this

Delete all but the comment you are replying to.

Hillary needs to go for someone who appeals to whites. A liberal white professor type from one of the New England states.

Thanks, is Howard Dean still around?

OllyT said:

MaxPB said:

OllyT said:

Re David HerdsonT

The white collar liberals comment was in response to MaxPB saying Clinton was in trouble with them.

There could be remnants of Reagan Democrats out there but the demographics have changed dramatically in the intervening 30 years and they are not as important as they were. I also really wonder how many of the type of blue collars that might go for Trump voted for Obama in 2008/2012.

I think Clinton is going to hold a much larger percentage of the Obama vote than Trump will of the Romney vote. The unknown is the number of extra voters each brings to the ticket - I would say few for Clinton and much more for Trump but I don't think it will be enough.

Seeing a lot of comment re the GOP VP - any tips on who thinks Hilary would go for?

Being relatively new to the site when I respond to a comment that is in a chain I am often told that my response is too long , perhaps some one can tell me how to get round this

Delete all but the comment you are replying to.

Hillary needs to go for someone who appeals to whites. A liberal white professor type from one of the New England states.

Thanks, is Howard Dean still around?

Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhh

Yup, it's not being Little EUers

Richard_Tyndall said:

JonCisBack said:

runnymede said:

'He said "the EU has been good for us". That statement is, without any shadow of a doubt, true'

If you look at the Bank's research on this, it is actually a bit thin. A lot of it is little more than a (slightly skewed) literature review and the crucial section where the Bank does argue that 'openness has increased ergo EU has been good' suffers from the major flaw of not really examining possible counterfactuals e.g. would 'openness' have increased anyway, perhaps even by more? The concept of 'openness' itself is also rather loosely defined.

And you are right that it is quite backward-looking overall. It is clearly designed to support the status quo (albeit not stridently) but doesn't make a very strong case for it.

Being in the single market has unquestionably benefited us.

A re-running of history where we had joined the common market in 1975, agreed to the rules around the single market in 1990s but NOTHING ELSE would be fascinating but impossible of course.

The key q for this whole referendum is whether we can hope to either be in the EU and not sign up to anything further, or leave and still get the benefits of the single market.

Probably neither is true, so neither of the referendum options appeals to me much :-(

So which is worse - isolation or sliding inexorably into a closer and closer political union? Arguments so far from both sides are deeply unedifying.

I still don't get the idea that being outside of a 28 country bloc along with the other 168 non EU countries including the biggest players in the world counts as 'isolation'.

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

The GERS figures are indeed truly horrible, far, far worse than anything the supposed "project fear" campaigners dared to forecast during the referendum. If the uncertainty and damage occasioned by potential independence and the transfer south of what is left of our financial services industry had been added we would have been looking at Greece in admiration at their fiscal sanity.

Sturgeon's response to this is frankly disgraceful: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35757787 Apparently, "This shows the foundations of Scotland's economy are strong and that we have a strong base to build our future progress upon."

It also explains why the absolute priority of the Scottish government in the recent negotiations was that the new fiscal autonomy rules would not make Scotland worse off. The tax base north of the border is, unfortunately, collapsing with the oil price and the drift of financial services southwards. We are left with a bureaucratic state that in terms of its dominance of the economy would put East Germany to shame.

We desperately need a government and an opposition that is focussed on running the country and making good some of the damage. But who believes that these terrible figures will move any votes?

How long will English voters tolerate Scots getting £1400 more per head AND a fiscal deal where England has to bail the Scots out if they screw up, but not the other way round?

I don't know. It is consistent with the Barnett formula and Scots would point out that there have been many, many years over the last few decades where Scotland has contributed substantially more than its share but in a world where public spending is under such pressure it is remarkable that more is not made of this.

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

nigel4england said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

On Mark Carney. I really don't understand the problem. He was asked questions by the committee and gave pretty straightforward answers. Nothing he said wasn't true or made up, it's the manner of the uphill argument we face in the Leave camp. Instead of lashing out at Carney we should have concentrated on what he actually said and, more importantly, didn't say.

He said "the EU has been good for us". That statement is, without any shadow of a doubt, true. What he didn't say, maybe because he wasn't asked, is whether it would be good for us in the future. We should be making the argument that the good times for the EU are over, our RoW trade is growing by 4% long run and our EU trade is falling by 2% long run. It is no longer in our interest to be in the EU as it was when it was "good for us".

He said "leaving would cause uncertainty". Well of course it would, but again, we need to work on the message. Not all uncertainty is bad. We had 10 years of certainty under Brown, investment fell, the state became bloated and we lost our entrepreneurial spirit as a nation. Yes there will be uncertainty, but out of that we will get new activity, new opportunities to trade with the rest of the world which is growing a lot faster than the EU.

As for HMQ, honestly, who cares if some unelected person is in favour of leaving or remaining. I highly doubt that the Queen being in favour of Brexit is going to convince an IT worker who likes going on holiday in Italy to vote to leave.

I agree with this absolutely. It really is long, long past time that those for Leave started to make the positive case for it and stopped the whining. It is getting dangerously close to too late.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a positive case for Remain.

Vote remain and the British Isles will not be consumed by the wrathful Atlantic.

Vote Remain and we'll continue to annoy the French by being in the EU. Why do you think De Gaulle kept on vetoing our entry.

That's old hat Mr Eagles, today it's Leave and the french will be forever be second string to Germany.

" look Hollande, when I want to know your opinion I'll ask Angela"

Vote Remain and we'll let you win the Eurovision song contest next time.

nigel4england said:

flightpath01 said:

nigel4england said:

flightpath01 said:

Hello Plato
Stats....
77% of car industry favours continued membership of EU.
Over 75% of cars built went to export with nearly 60% going to the EU. The motor industry accounts for nearly 12% of all exports ... £15 billion.
800,000 people employed by the industry.
SMMT Chief says the EU is 'vital for the future' and 'leaving would put many of these jobs at risk'
Toyota deputy managing director say leaving would 'open up a very uncertain future of technical difficulties and increased costs'
(Autocar survey)
So carry on Miss Plato (and others) carry on campaining to 'put many of these jobs at risk' .

You can see what forms Carney's opinions.

PS
Peter Bone has a nerve... he was happy to be jovial sharing a platform with Galloway. (And some people wonder why I use the word 'odious'.) This is before you get to Farage.

Someone had better tell the mugs that are investing £2billion in the UK car industry then.

How has the UK car industry performed since the doomsday scenario of not joining the Euro?

Mugs earning the nation a fortune. The car industry is an amazing (foreign owned) success. Massive investment based on it being in the EU.
You just carry on 'putting all these jobs at risk'. Your cavalier attitude to reality is shameful.

Oh dear, perhaps you should have reread this before you posted it.

iI used to have a Cavalier attiitude but then GM transferred all the production to Germany.

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If David Cameron is stuck for anything to say at this Prime Minister's Questions, there's a fair chance that this will make an appearance:

JohnRentoul · 32m32 minutes ago

This is an appalling story. How could any normal person want to be in the same party as this fool? http://order-order.com/2016/03/09/911-apologist-reinstated-as-full-labour-member/ …

Second thing he mentioned.

Only surprise was that he didn't use the phrase "terrorist sympathiser".

Give it time.

NickPalmer said:

OllyT said:

Being relatively new to the site when I respond to a comment that is in a chain I am often told that my response is too long , perhaps some one can tell me how to get round this

When you click on "reply" you get all the previous discussion rapped in blockqoute and slash(endf)blockquote bracketing. If there are several comments you'll see two or three blockquotes with the matching slash blockquote lower down. The trick is to delete them in pairs. Alternatively,just take out a bunch of text without touching the blockquotes. That's what I've done in replying to you here - I've deleted everything you said except the last para, because I'm only replying to the last para in this post.

I expect I've made that sound more complicated than it is, sorry, but it's fairly easy when you've done it a few times.

Thanks - technology not my strongest but but I'll give it a go

Alanbrooke said:

nigel4england said:

flightpath01 said:

nigel4england said:

flightpath01 said:

Hello Plato
Stats....
77% of car industry favours continued membership of EU.
Over 75% of cars built went to export with nearly 60% going to the EU. The motor industry accounts for nearly 12% of all exports ... £15 billion.
800,000 people employed by the industry.
SMMT Chief says the EU is 'vital for the future' and 'leaving would put many of these jobs at risk'
Toyota deputy managing director say leaving would 'open up a very uncertain future of technical difficulties and increased costs'
(Autocar survey)
So carry on Miss Plato (and others) carry on campaining to 'put many of these jobs at risk' .

You can see what forms Carney's opinions.

PS
Peter Bone has a nerve... he was happy to be jovial sharing a platform with Galloway. (And some people wonder why I use the word 'odious'.) This is before you get to Farage.

Someone had better tell the mugs that are investing £2billion in the UK car industry then.

How has the UK car industry performed since the doomsday scenario of not joining the Euro?

Mugs earning the nation a fortune. The car industry is an amazing (foreign owned) success. Massive investment based on it being in the EU.
You just carry on 'putting all these jobs at risk'. Your cavalier attitude to reality is shameful.

Oh dear, perhaps you should have reread this before you posted it.

I used to have a Cavalier attiitude but then GM transferred all the production to Germany to safeguard our jobs

@IsabelHardman: This is Corbyn's worst PMQs yet

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

nigel4england said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

On Mark Carney. I really don't understand the problem. He was asked questions by the committee and gave pretty straightforward answers. Nothing he said wasn't true or made up, it's the manner of the uphill argument we face in the Leave camp. Instead of lashing out at Carney we should have concentrated on what he actually said and, more importantly, didn't say.

He said "the EU has been good for us". That statement is, without any shadow of a doubt, true. What he didn't say, maybe because he wasn't asked, is whether it would be good for us in the future. We should be making the argument that the good times for the EU are over, our RoW trade is growing by 4% long run and our EU trade is falling by 2% long run. It is no longer in our interest to be in the EU as it was when it was "good for us".

He said "leaving would cause uncertainty". Well of course it would, but again, we need to work on the message. Not all uncertainty is bad. We had 10 years of certainty under Brown, investment fell, the state became bloated and we lost our entrepreneurial spirit as a nation. Yes there will be uncertainty, but out of that we will get new activity, new opportunities to trade with the rest of the world which is growing a lot faster than the EU.

As for HMQ, honestly, who cares if some unelected person is in favour of leaving or remaining. I highly doubt that the Queen being in favour of Brexit is going to convince an IT worker who likes going on holiday in Italy to vote to leave.

I agree with this absolutely. It really is long, long past time that those for Leave started to make the positive case for it and stopped the whining. It is getting dangerously close to too late.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a positive case for Remain.

Vote remain and the British Isles will not be consumed by the wrathful Atlantic.

Vote Remain and we'll continue to annoy the French by being in the EU. Why do you think De Gaulle kept on vetoing our entry.

Vote Remain and have the EU welcome 74 million Muslims in a few years time.

I'm unclear about the Turkish visas. I presume they're work ones = EU membership ones, otherwise they're tourists.

What level of trade does Turkey have with the EU now?

It appears that Turkey are getting the biggest advantage of membership without getting it formalised.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

nigel4england said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

On Mark Carney. I really don't understand the problem. He was asked questions by the committee and gave pretty straightforward answers. Nothing he said wasn't true or made up, it's the manner of the uphill argument we face in the Leave camp. Instead of lashing out at Carney we should have concentrated on what he actually said and, more importantly, didn't say.

He said "the EU has been good for us". That statement is, without any shadow of a doubt, true. What he didn't say, maybe because he wasn't asked, is whether it would be good for us in the future. We should be making the argument that the good times for the EU are over, our RoW trade is growing by 4% long run and our EU trade is falling by 2% long run. It is no longer in our interest to be in the EU as it was when it was "good for us".

He said "leaving would cause uncertainty". Well of course it would, but again, we need to work on the message. Not all uncertainty is bad. We had 10 years of certainty under Brown, investment fell, the state became bloated and we lost our entrepreneurial spirit as a nation. Yes there will be uncertainty, but out of that we will get new activity, new opportunities to trade with the rest of the world which is growing a lot faster than the EU.

As for HMQ, honestly, who cares if some unelected person is in favour of leaving or remaining. I highly doubt that the Queen being in favour of Brexit is going to convince an IT worker who likes going on holiday in Italy to vote to leave.

I agree with this absolutely. It really is long, long past time that those for Leave started to make the positive case for it and stopped the whining. It is getting dangerously close to too late.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a positive case for Remain.

Vote remain and the British Isles will not be consumed by the wrathful Atlantic.

Vote Remain and we'll continue to annoy the French by being in the EU. Why do you think De Gaulle kept on vetoing our entry.

Vote Remain and have the EU welcome 74 million Muslims in a few years time.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pong said:

What the feck?

Someone just bet £975 at *EVENS* on Nikki Haley for the GOP nominee.

I didn't lay it, sadly.

Typo? Or meant for the vice-presidential?

Someone just made a VERY expensive mistake with the back and lay buttons I think...

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Richard Burgon "the farting commie" asked a smart question which Labour can build attacks upon.
"If people vote LEAVE will the PM Resign?"
Answer = No.

Good. The one thing that might have dragged me, kicking and screaming, into the remain camp would be the party having a bout of regicide and removing Cameron. He is the only choice for PM, there is no one else.

MaxPB said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Richard Burgon "the farting commie" asked a smart question which Labour can build attacks upon.
"If people vote LEAVE will the PM Resign?"
Answer = No.

Good. The one thing that might have dragged me, kicking and screaming, into the remain camp would be the party having a bout of regicide and removing Cameron. He is the only choice for PM, there is no one else.

and Nicola Sturgeon for Chancellor

MaxPB said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Richard Burgon "the farting commie" asked a smart question which Labour can build attacks upon.
"If people vote LEAVE will the PM Resign?"
Answer = No.

Good. The one thing that might have dragged me, kicking and screaming, into the remain camp would be the party having a bout of regicide and removing Cameron. He is the only choice for PM, there is no one else.

So long as Cameron continues to use the Govt machinery in the way he has been doing for REMAIN, a move against Cameron after the referendum will become inevitable. Just as Osborne's chances of taking over get buried deeper with each stunt. If they want a different outcome they need to be seen to be acting fairly.

richardDodd said:

NO...Cameron will not resign if it is Out..

That does look to be something he will not have a say in.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pong said:

What the feck?

Someone just bet £975 at *EVENS* on Nikki Haley for the GOP nominee.

I didn't lay it, sadly.

Could this be someone using the Cashout button?

Who knows.

I can't understand how a cashout would result in a back bet of that size at those odds.

99% likely to be unintentional, IMO.

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pong said:

What the feck?

Someone just bet £975 at *EVENS* on Nikki Haley for the GOP nominee.

I didn't lay it, sadly.

Typo? Or meant for the vice-presidential?

Someone just made a VERY expensive mistake with the back and lay buttons I think...

But, if they'd been green on Haley, and wanted to lay, they wouldn't need 975 in their account (I keep my balance to a minimum for this reason, ever since I lost £5.64 in a finger error).

Plato_Says said:

I'm unclear about the Turkish visas. I presume they're work ones = EU membership ones, otherwise they're tourists.

What level of trade does Turkey have with the EU now?

It appears that Turkey are getting the biggest advantage of membership without getting it formalised.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

nigel4england said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

On Mark Carney. I really don't understand the problem. He was asked questions by the committee and gave pretty straightforward answers. Nothing he said wasn't true or made up, it's the manner of the uphill argument we face in the Leave camp. Instead of lashing out at Carney we should have concentrated on what he actually said and, more importantly, didn't say.

He said "the EU has been good for us". That statement is, without any shadow of a doubt, true. What he didn't say, maybe because he wasn't asked, is whether it would be good for us in the future. We should be making the argument that the good times for the EU are over, our RoW trade is growing by 4% long run and our EU trade is falling by 2% long run. It is no longer in our interest to be in the EU as it was when it was "good for us".

He said "leaving would cause uncertainty". Well of course it would, but again, we need to work on the message. Not all uncertainty is bad. We had 10 years of certainty under Brown, investment fell, the state became bloated and we lost our entrepreneurial spirit as a nation. Yes there will be uncertainty, but out of that we will get new activity, new opportunities to trade with the rest of the world which is growing a lot faster than the EU.

As for HMQ, honestly, who cares if some unelected person is in favour of leaving or remaining. I highly doubt that the Queen being in favour of Brexit is going to convince an IT worker who likes going on holiday in Italy to vote to leave.

I agree with this absolutely. It really is long, long past time that those for Leave started to make the positive case for it and stopped the whining. It is getting dangerously close to too late.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a positive case for Remain.

Vote remain and the British Isles will not be consumed by the wrathful Atlantic.

Vote Remain and we'll continue to annoy the French by being in the EU. Why do you think De Gaulle kept on vetoing our entry.

Vote Remain and have the EU welcome 74 million Muslims in a few years time.

Yes i should have said that Turkey may get a form of free movement within Schengen in a few weeks time and in a few years time access to non-Schengen countries such as the UK. If we REMAIN.

Excellent point from Cameron about segregated meetings. One disgusting aspect of the Labour party.

Richard Burgon - a walking 'own goal'.

Tony McNulty ‎@Tony_McNulty
Entirely stupid question from Richard Burgon - no thought at all just chance to unite Tories in incredulity. Great cringes from Labour MPs.

George Eaton ✔ ‎@georgeeaton
Richard Burgon foolishly turns EU referendum into vote on Cameron. Good way to help Out win. #PMQs

George Eaton ✔ ‎@georgeeaton
Most Labour MPs will despair at that mindless tribalism. #PMQs

nigel4england said:

richardDodd said:

NO...Cameron will not resign if it is Out..

He might be sacked though, who would want him leading the negotiations on our behalf?

The EU?

Spitfires Herald the Anglia way.

Charles said:

Plato_Says said:

Opel My God

Alanbrooke said:

nigel4england said:

flightpath01 said:

nigel4england said:

flightpath01 said:

Hello Plato
Stats....
77% of car industry favours continued membership of EU.
Over 75% of cars built went to export with nearly 60% going to the EU. The motor industry accounts for nearly 12% of all exports ... £15 billion.
800,000 people employed by the industry.
SMMT Chief says the EU is 'vital for the future' and 'leaving would put many of these jobs at risk'
Toyota deputy managing director say leaving would 'open up a very uncertain future of technical difficulties and increased costs'
(Autocar survey)
So carry on Miss Plato (and others) carry on campaining to 'put many of these jobs at risk' .

You can see what forms Carney's opinions.

PS
Peter Bone has a nerve... he was happy to be jovial sharing a platform with Galloway. (And some people wonder why I use the word 'odious'.) This is before you get to Farage.

Someone had better tell the mugs that are investing £2billion in the UK car industry then.

How has the UK car industry performed since the doomsday scenario of not joining the Euro?

Mugs earning the nation a fortune. The car industry is an amazing (foreign owned) success. Massive investment based on it being in the EU.
You just carry on 'putting all these jobs at risk'. Your cavalier attitude to reality is shameful.

Oh dear, perhaps you should have reread this before you posted it.

iI used to have a Cavalier attiitude but then GM transferred all the production to Germany.

Think he Nayl-ored it. Quite a Triumph (although only really a Minor one). You can Reliant on @Alanbrooke though