My guess would be the PCA, but I could be wrong. My hope is that the EU is as disorganised as we are. Because it would not be good for us if a case was filed on the day after crash out.
The EU's been war-gaming handling No Deal from the beginning, so you can bet they will have everything in place to neuter the UK.
My guess would be the PCA, but I could be wrong. My hope is that the EU is as disorganised as we are. Because it would not be good for us if a case was filed on the day after crash out.
The EU's been war-gaming handling No Deal from the beginning, so you can bet they will have everything in place to neuter the UK.
Neuter the UK?
In his dreams, most likely!
Still haven't been persuaded that williamglenn isn't actually Jean Claude Juncker.
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
Finally before I go to sleep, oddly in the event of no deal I expect gilt yields to fall quite significantly. There will be a flight to safety and probably another round of QE.
If we're in dispute with the EU over an exit bill, that will not affect the ability of the British government to raise finance (IMHO). What would potentially be a problem would be after we inevitably lose at international arbitration re pensions: if we then refused to pay that, it would almost certainly constitute a technical default, which would cause other obligations to come due.
(A great many bonds - and debts generally - contain small print about becoming immediately due in the event of default, because that avoids creditors finding themselves at the back of the queue in the event of default.)
But, realistically, that would take 3-4 years from crash out to come about. (And it wouldn't be Boris, or even Boris's successor in Number 10 at that point.)
If the UK government had any sense, they'd offer to pay the £10-20bn that they'd lose on in arbitration immediately. Because legally the rest is on massively shakier ground.
Yes, I think about half would be payable either way, or we'd at least have to take £15-20bn worth of liabilities on to the government balance sheet for pensions and other costs. The rest would go into dispute resolution and make no difference to gilt prices. The question is political IMO. Is it sensible to go into a dispute resolution process with an organisation who you want to conclude a fairly vast trade deal with? I'd say no, but then I'm not trying to win the leadership of the Tory party.
If I were PM and knew No Deal was inevitable, then I would immediately offer about £15bn, and I'd make sure it was explicitly for the stuff we'd end up paying for anyway. By doing this, it would dramatically lower the chance that the EU would take the rest to dispute resolution. Simply, they don't want to be embarassed by a loss, and they know that some of their demand would be doomed. We might (might) end up paying another £5bn down the line, after further negotiations, but I think that would be the sum of it.
What we really don't want to end up with is a situation where the PM makes blood and iron speeches about not paying a penny, and then we end up in interntional arbitration, and they rule against us to the tune of £20bn. Then we either end up grudgingly paying. Or we end up going into technical default, which would end up costing us far more than the £20bn bill.
Apparently EU lawyers reckoned they had a strong case under international treaties on most of these payments. Maybe they would say that...
In any case, expect the EU to take a an extremely hard line on everything the UK wants while this dispute is open. They'll get the money anyway. None of this will do us any good.
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
Mostly, however unfortunately we have seen comments from some referencing the war and such things as relevant to Brexit, so it is not entirely made up. It is definitely assumed a lot more than is the case, lazily and as a means of easily dismissing leavers as a whole, but it's not non existent.
Why are so many tory MPs publicly endorsing candidates?
-? you want to weasel your way to a government position on the small chance that your backee becomes PM, but what kind of PM chooses a minister on this basis? -? you're a close friend of the candidate. This might explain 20 or so endorsements, not many more.
On the otherhand, you have nailed your colours to the mast, which can easily be held against you in the future.
You want the credit from them for helping their campaign, and might get goodwill or a job in future. You say it is a small chance, but almost 10% of the entire party will be in Cabinet so it doesn't take too much to get your name in there in some capacity.
Also, in fairness, you might actually care about the result for non-egoistical reasons, and genuinely want to help X vs Y because you think X would be better for the country (or the party, which you may believe to be the same thing).
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
Did you watch different EU elections to the rest of us? I ask, because it seemed to me as if the LDs were the main anti Brexit party.
The LDs, the Greens, Labour, the SNP, Plaid, Sinn Fein and the Alliance party we’re all explicitly opposed to a No Deal Brexit. Between them they get substantially more than 60% of the votes cast.
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%. Add Corbyn Labour too whose official policy is still Brexit rather than revoke and Remain or EUref2 than over 58% of voters backed pro Brexit parties in the European elections.
At the last general election 84% voted for the pro Brexit Tories, Corbyn Labour or UKIP.
In Peterborough on Thursday the pro Brexit Corbyn Labour, Brexit Party and Tories and UKIP won 82% of the vote combined.
In none of those elections did the pro Revoke or EUref2 LDs, Greens, CUK, SNP and Plaid combined get anywhere near 51% of the vote or more
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
Did you watch different EU elections to the rest of us? I ask, because it seemed to me as if the LDs were the main anti Brexit party.
The LDs, the Greens, Labour, the SNP, Plaid, Sinn Fein and the Alliance party we’re all explicitly opposed to a No Deal Brexit. Between them they get substantially more than 60% of the votes cast.
Corbyn Labour is pro Brexit as are the Tories, many of their voters would prefer No Deal to revoke if a Brexit Deal was no longer an option and no further extension was allowed by the EU in October
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
If we're in dispute with the EU over an exit bill, that will not affect the ability of the British government to raise finance (IMHO). What would potentially be a problem would be after we inevitably lose at international arbitration re pensions: if we then refused to pay that, it would almost certainly constitute a technical default, which would cause other obligations to come due.
(A great many bonds - and debts generally - contain small print about becoming immediately due in the event of default, because that avoids creditors finding themselves at the back of the queue in the event of default.)
But, realistically, that would take 3-4 years from crash out to come about. (And it wouldn't be Boris, or even Boris's successor in Number 10 at that point.)
If the UK government had any sense, they'd offer to pay the £10-20bn that they'd lose on in arbitration immediately. Because legally the rest is on massively shakier ground.
Yes, I think about half would be payable either way, or we'd at least have to take £15-20bn worth of liabilities on to the government balance sheet for pensions and other costs. The rest would go into dispute resolution and make no difference to gilt prices. The question is political IMO. Is it sensible to go into a dispute resolution process with an organisation who you want to conclude a fairly vast trade deal with? I'd say no, but then I'm not trying to win the leadership of the Tory party.
If I were PM and We might (might) end up paying another £5bn down the line, after further negotiations, but I think that would be the sum of it.
What we really don't want to end up with is a situation where the PM makes blood and iron speeches about not paying a penny, and then we end up in interntional arbitration, and they rule against us to the tune of £20bn. Then we either end up grudgingly paying. Or we end up going into technical default, which would end up costing us far more than the £20bn bill.
Apparently EU lawyers reckoned they had a strong case under international treaties on most of these payments. Maybe they would say that...
In any case, expect the EU to take a an extremely hard line on everything the UK wants while this dispute is open. They'll get the money anyway. None of this will do us any good.
Indeed - rethinking or withdrawing No Deal mitigations looks an obvious starting point for the EU27. That will very quickly cost the UK a lot more than £39 billion.
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
Did you watch different EU elections to the rest of us? I ask, because it seemed to me as if the LDs were the main anti Brexit party.
The LDs, the Greens, Labour, the SNP, Plaid, Sinn Fein and the Alliance party we’re all explicitly opposed to a No Deal Brexit. Between them they get substantially more than 60% of the votes cast.
Corbyn Labour is pro Brexit as are the Tories, many of their voters would prefer No Deal to revoke if a Brexit Deal was no longer an option and no further extension was allowed by the EU in October
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%. Add Corbyn Labour too whose official policy is still Brexit rather than revoke and Remain or EUref2 than over 58% of voters backed pro Brexit parties in the European elections.
At the last general election 84% voted for the pro Brexit Tories, Corbyn Labour or UKIP.
In Peterborough on Thursday the pro Brexit Corbyn Labour, Brexit Party and Tories and UKIP won 82% of the vote combined.
In none of those elections did the pro Revoke or EUref2 LDs, Greens, CUK, SNP and Plaid combined get anywhere near 51% of the vote or more
Being pro-Brexit is not the same as being pro-No Deal Brexit. Whether you like it or not parties opposed to a No Deal Brexit consistently get more votes than those in favour of it. There’s no way round that, I’m afraid.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
Maybe not but according to YouGov 2017 Tory voters split 76% for No Deal and only 19% for Revoke and Remain on a forced choice
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
Maybe not but according to YouGov 2017 Tory voters split 76% for No Deal and only 19% for Revoke and Remain on a forced choice
Yes, and how many of those voted for the Brexit Party in the Euros? You are double-counting.
In any case it's utter nonsense. As I've pointed out to you many times, support for 'no deal' is mostly frustration with the fact that the ERG have made actually leaving the EU such a complete mess. It is naive in the extreme, a schoolboy error, to assume that support for no deal would actually survive contact with the reality of no deal.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
Nor this Corbynite leaver
Maybe not too but again according to YouGov 26% of 2017 Labour voters, over a quarter, would still vote for No Deal over Revoke
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
Actually it was Jew hating Peterborough rather than No Deal rejecting Peterborough.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
Maybe not but according to YouGov 2017 Tory voters split 76% for No Deal and only 19% for Revoke and Remain on a forced choice
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
Maybe not but according to YouGov 2017 Tory voters split 76% for No Deal and only 19% for Revoke and Remain on a forced choice
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
Maybe not but according to YouGov 2017 Tory voters split 76% for No Deal and only 19% for Revoke and Remain on a forced choice
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
Nor this Corbynite leaver
Maybe not too but again according to YouGov 26% of 2017 Labour voters, over a quarter, would still vote for No Deal over Revoke
I feel like observing HYUFD working his polling referencing is like watching a magician at work, all flash and with the feeling I am missing seeing the actual trick.
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
Actually it was Jew hating Peterborough rather than No Deal rejecting Peterborough.
Not everything is about Brexit.
Indeed and the winning Labour candidate refused to back EUref2 anyway which was partly why she won a Leave seat like Peterborough
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%. Add Corbyn Labour too whose official policy is still Brexit rather than revoke and Remain or EUref2 than over 58% of voters backed pro Brexit parties in the European elections.
At the last general election 84% voted for the pro Brexit Tories, Corbyn Labour or UKIP.
In Peterborough on Thursday the pro Brexit Corbyn Labour, Brexit Party and Tories and UKIP won 82% of the vote combined.
In none of those elections did the pro Revoke or EUref2 LDs, Greens, CUK, SNP and Plaid combined get anywhere near 51% of the vote or more
Being pro-Brexit is not the same as being pro-No Deal Brexit. Whether you like it or not parties opposed to a No Deal Brexit consistently get more votes than those in favour of it. There’s no way round that, I’m afraid.
I am afraid there is also no getting around the fact that if a Deal does not prove possible and further extension is denied by the EU in October then polling shows that voters may prefer No Deal to revoke or remain if that is the only way to achieve Brexit
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
Actually it was Jew hating Peterborough rather than No Deal rejecting Peterborough.
Not everything is about Brexit.
Indeed and the winning Labour candidate refused to back EUref2 anyway which was partly why she won a Leave seat like Peterborough
To Be honest HYUFD, I don't buy into your claims about a No Deal majority either. I wish it were true that when the crunch came people would choose No Deal over Revoke but I just don't see the evidence for it at the moment.
My point was that, as at the 2017 election, votes for Parliamentary seats are about far more than just Brexit. In this case the Labour Party playing up to the anti-Jewish minority in Peterborough sufficiently enough to win the vote.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%.
Oi! You most certainly can't add this Tory to the No Deal madness mix.
Nor this Corbynite leaver
Maybe not too but again according to YouGov 26% of 2017 Labour voters, over a quarter, would still vote for No Deal over Revoke
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%. Add Corbyn Labour too whose official policy is still Brexit rather than revoke and Remain or EUref2 than over 58% of voters backed pro Brexit parties in the European elections.
At the last general election 84% voted for the pro Brexit Tories, Corbyn Labour or UKIP.
In Peterborough on Thursday the pro Brexit Corbyn Labour, Brexit Party and Tories and UKIP won 82% of the vote combined.
In none of those elections did the pro Revoke or EUref2 LDs, Greens, CUK, SNP and Plaid combined get anywhere near 51% of the vote or more
Being pro-Brexit is not the same as being pro-No Deal Brexit. Whether you like it or not parties opposed to a No Deal Brexit consistently get more votes than those in favour of it. There’s no way round that, I’m afraid.
I am afraid there is also no getting around the fact that if a Deal does not prove possible and further extension is denied by the EU in October then polling shows that voters may prefer No Deal to revoke or remain if that is the only way to achieve Brexit
What that polling shows is actually 55% back Brexit of some form, whether No Deal, May's Deal or soft Brexit.
However if it is a forced choice between No Deal or Revoke and Remain then No Deal can win, although I accept most voters still want Brexit with some form of Deal
I see Elizabeth Warren has shortened today on BF to under 10, presumably because of her strong Iowa poll (though it wasn't that impressive). I think she should be same odds as Buttigieg and close to Harris, so fair play there.
Should Sanders really be the same as Harris/Buttigieg? His fundraising was much stronger in Q1 and his polling is much better. I get he is seen as having less room to grow due to his sky-high recognition already, but I think that's a bit harsh. I also think people keep making useless comparisons to his 2016 numbers which ignore the fact that he was one of two (or three) candidates then - not one of 20.
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
There isn't going to be 'libertarian pirate island' because no matter how much some people want it there's a far greater number who don't.
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
No. It's about governing ourselves.
We do that already . No country is a hundred percent sovereign unless it wants to be an isolated rock with no friends . Unless that’s the Brexit masterplan!
Choosing to share some of your sovereignty to work with others and allow your people to broaden their horizons with 27 other nations , to have that freedom to live and work there , the cultural and science links etc is something that should be treasured and not chucked away for some illusory prize.
The UK I’m afraid is entering a very dark chapter in its history . I don’t see this ending well, if the UK is taken down the road of no deal .
A vocal minority aided by a right wing press who have hijacked the EU ref to mean a complete severing of ties and no deal exit must be defeated.
A no deal will mean a complete fracturing of the UK , the divisions which are bad now will become even worse in that event .
Being pro-Brexit is not the same as being pro-No Deal Brexit. Whether you like it or not parties opposed to a No Deal Brexit consistently get more votes than those in favour of it. There’s no way round that, I’m afraid.
Of course there is! We can strip the vote from enemies of the people who oppose No Deal Brexit, and then we can call a totally democratic election.
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
No. It's about governing ourselves.
We do that already . No country is a hundred percent sovereign unless it wants to be an isolated rock with no friends . Unless that’s the Brexit masterplan!
Choosing to share some of your sovereignty to work with others and allow your people to broaden their horizons with 27 other nations , to have that freedom to live and work there , the cultural and science links etc is something that should be treasured and not chucked away for some illusory prize.
The UK I’m afraid is entering a very dark chapter in its history . I don’t see this ending well, if the UK is taken down the road of no deal .
A vocal minority aided by a right wing press who have hijacked the EU ref to mean a complete severing of ties and no deal exit must be defeated.
A no deal will mean a complete fracturing of the UK , the divisions which are bad now will become even worse in that event .
I must have missed something. Are the latest proposals to sever all connections with Europe, in some form of modern day autarky?
I see Elizabeth Warren has shortened today on BF to under 10, presumably because of her strong Iowa poll (though it wasn't that impressive). I think she should be same odds as Buttigieg and close to Harris, so fair play there.
Should Sanders really be the same as Harris/Buttigieg? His fundraising was much stronger in Q1 and his polling is much better. I get he is seen as having less room to grow due to his sky-high recognition already, but I think that's a bit harsh. I also think people keep making useless comparisons to his 2016 numbers which ignore the fact that he was one of two (or three) candidates then - not one of 20.
Personally, I think Iowa is showing up the weaknesses of both Biden and Sanders. Iowans are seeing more of both than anywhere else, and in both cases, they're polling less well than nationally.
The polling yesterday which showed that Biden was the choice of people who "hadn't been paying much attention" to the election also should really concern his team. (Both him and Sanders scored highly with people who haven't been paying much attention. Warren scored really highly with those paying a lot of attention, and Buttigieg and Harris were in the middle.) As we get nearer to the primaries, there are far fewer unengaged voters, which is good for Warren (and therefore Trump), and bad for Biden and Sanders.
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
No. It's about governing ourselves.
We do that already . No country is a hundred percent sovereign unless it wants to be an isolated rock with no friends . Unless that’s the Brexit masterplan!
Choosing to share some of your sovereignty to work with others and allow your people to broaden their horizons with 27 other nations , to have that freedom to live and work there , the cultural and science links etc is something that should be treasured and not chucked away for some illusory prize.
The UK I’m afraid is entering a very dark chapter in its history . I don’t see this ending well, if the UK is taken down the road of no deal .
A vocal minority aided by a right wing press who have hijacked the EU ref to mean a complete severing of ties and no deal exit must be defeated.
A no deal will mean a complete fracturing of the UK , the divisions which are bad now will become even worse in that event .
I must have missed something. Are the latest proposals to sever all connections with Europe, in some form of modern day autarky?
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
No. It's about governing ourselves.
We do that already . No country is a hundred percent sovereign unless it wants to be an isolated rock with no friends . Unless that’s the Brexit masterplan!
Choosing to share some of your sovereignty to work with others and allow your people to broaden their horizons with 27 other nations , to have that freedom to live and work there , the cultural and science links etc is something that should be treasured and not chucked away for some illusory prize.
The UK I’m afraid is entering a very dark chapter in its history . I don’t see this ending well, if the UK is taken down the road of no deal .
A vocal minority aided by a right wing press who have hijacked the EU ref to mean a complete severing of ties and no deal exit must be defeated.
A no deal will mean a complete fracturing of the UK , the divisions which are bad now will become even worse in that event .
I must have missed something. Are the latest proposals to sever all connections with Europe, in some form of modern day autarky?
No deal will poison relations . Refusing to honour commitments made is not likely to lead to much goodwill .
I see Elizabeth Warren has shortened today on BF to under 10, presumably because of her strong Iowa poll (though it wasn't that impressive). I think she should be same odds as Buttigieg and close to Harris, so fair play there.
Should Sanders really be the same as Harris/Buttigieg? His fundraising was much stronger in Q1 and his polling is much better. I get he is seen as having less room to grow due to his sky-high recognition already, but I think that's a bit harsh. I also think people keep making useless comparisons to his 2016 numbers which ignore the fact that he was one of two (or three) candidates then - not one of 20.
It's partly the Iowa poll, but also she's putting in really strong media performances. The previous odds just didn't price in what an effective candidate she is IMHO.
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
No. It's about governing ourselves.
We do that already . No country is a hundred percent sovereign unless it wants to be an isolated rock with no friends . Unless that’s the Brexit masterplan!
Choosing to share some of your sovereignty to work with others and allow your people to broaden their horizons with 27 other nations , to have that freedom to live and work there , the cultural and science links etc is something that should be treasured and not chucked away for some illusory prize.
The UK I’m afraid is entering a very dark chapter in its history . I don’t see this ending well, if the UK is taken down the road of no deal .
A vocal minority aided by a right wing press who have hijacked the EU ref to mean a complete severing of ties and no deal exit must be defeated.
A no deal will mean a complete fracturing of the UK , the divisions which are bad now will become even worse in that event .
I must have missed something. Are the latest proposals to sever all connections with Europe, in some form of modern day autarky?
No deal will poison relations . Refusing to honour commitments made is not likely to lead to much goodwill .
There's no doubt that we would pay the amount legally due. What's up for debate is the amount paid for the transition period. If we are leaving without a deal, that obviously isn't needed.
Being pro-Brexit is not the same as being pro-No Deal Brexit. Whether you like it or not parties opposed to a No Deal Brexit consistently get more votes than those in favour of it. There’s no way round that, I’m afraid.
Of course there is! We can strip the vote from enemies of the people who oppose No Deal Brexit, and then we can call a totally democratic election.
Something similar worked with Colonel Pride. The old ways are best.
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
Actually it was Jew hating Peterborough rather than No Deal rejecting Peterborough.
Not everything is about Brexit.
Indeed and the winning Labour candidate refused to back EUref2 anyway which was partly why she won a Leave seat like Peterborough
To Be honest HYUFD, I don't buy into your claims about a No Deal majority either. I wish it were true that when the crunch came people would choose No Deal over Revoke but I just don't see the evidence for it at the moment.
My point was that, as at the 2017 election, votes for Parliamentary seats are about far more than just Brexit. In this case the Labour Party playing up to the anti-Jewish minority in Peterborough sufficiently enough to win the vote.
The evidence I was pointing to was a YouGov poll from late March which had voters preferring No Deal to Revoke 44% to 42%.
If MPs think they can just keep voting down the Withdrawal Agreement then ultimately revoke the Brexit most voters voted for altogether and keep most of their voters on side they may find they have another thing coming!
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
No. It's about governing ourselves.
We do that already . No country is a hundred percent sovereign unless it wants to be an isolated rock with no friends . Unless that’s the Brexit masterplan!
Choosing to share some of your sovereignty to work with others and allow your people to broaden their horizons with 27 other nations , to have that freedom to live and work there , the cultural and science links etc is something that should be treasured and not chucked away for some illusory prize.
The UK I’m afraid is entering a very dark chapter in its history . I don’t see this ending well, if the UK is taken down the road of no deal .
A vocal minority aided by a right wing press who have hijacked the EU ref to mean a complete severing of ties and no deal exit must be defeated.
A no deal will mean a complete fracturing of the UK , the divisions which are bad now will become even worse in that event .
I must have missed something. Are the latest proposals to sever all connections with Europe, in some form of modern day autarky?
No deal will poison relations . Refusing to honour commitments made is not likely to lead to much goodwill .
There's no doubt that we would pay the amount legally due. What's up for debate is the amount paid for the transition period. If we are leaving without a deal, that obviously isn't needed.
I’m not arguing on that point . No transition means the bill is reduced . However Johnson isn’t saying that . He wants to not pay anything at all even in a no deal .
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elrtunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%. Add Corbyn Labour too whose official policy is still Brexit rather than revoke and Remain or EUref2 than over 58% of voters backed pro Brexit parties in the European elections.
At the last general election 84% voted for the pro Brexit Tories, Corbyn Labour or UKIP.
In Peterborough on Thursday the pro Brexit Corbyn Labour, Brexit Party and Tories and UKIP won 82% of the vote combined.
In none of those elections did the pro Revoke or EUref2 LDs, Greens, CUK, SNP and Plaid combined get anywhere near 51% of the vote or more
Being pro-Brexit is not the same as being pro-No Deals no way round that, I’m afraid.
I am afraid there is also no getting around the fact that if a Deal does not prove possible and further extension is denied by the EU in October then polling shows that voters may prefer No Deal to revoke or remain if that is the only way to achieve Brexit
Essentially a bunch of well off mostly middle aged and pensioners of the Tory Membership will be deciding the future PM.
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
The Empire 2.0 trope is just in the minds of Remainers...
It’s pretty obvious what’s going on. And has been for three years . Brexit is the Trojan horse to help deliver a low tax , low regulation , shrinking of the state allied with delusions of a Britain ruling the world again .
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
No. It's about governing ourselves.
We do that already . No country is a hundred percent sovereign unless it wants to be an isolated rock with no friends . Unless that’s the Brexit masterplan!
Choosing to share some of your sovereignty to work with others and allow your people to broaden their horizons with 27 other nations , to have that freedom to live and work there , the cultural and science links etc is something that should be treasured and not chucked away for some illusory prize.
The UK I’m afraid is entering a very dark chapter in its history . I don’t see this ending well, if the UK is taken down the road of no deal .
A vocal minority aided by a right wing press who have hijacked the EU ref to mean a complete severing of ties and no deal exit must be defeated.
A no deal will mean a complete fracturing of the UK , the divisions which are bad now will become even worse in that event .
I must have missed something. Are the latest proposals to sever all connections with Europe, in some form of modern day autarky?
No deal will poison relations . Refusing to honour commitments made is not likely to lead to much goodwill .
There's no doubt that we would pay the amount legally due. What's up for debate is the amount paid for the transition period. If we are leaving without a deal, that obviously isn't needed.
I’m not arguing on that point . No transition means the bill is reduced . However Johnson isn’t saying that . He wants to not pay anything at all even in a no deal .
Those are the only commitments. The rest of the bill can be filed under "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". As for Boris' bellicose talk, I'd be very surprised if legal obligations were not paid even in the event of a no deal.
Given a choice in actual elections voters always oppose No Deal.
Do they, the Brexit Party won most votes in the European elections on a No Deal platform, CUK was the main party pushing revoke and got less than 5%
In the Euro elections No Deal parties won well under 50% of the vote. In the last general election, parties that rejected No Deal won over 50% of the vote. Given the opportunity to vote for No Deal last Thursday Leave-backing Peterborough decided against.
The Brexit Party and UKIP combined got 35% of the vote in the European elections, and of course most Tories prefer No Deal to revoke too and add them to the mix and that makes 44%. Add Corbyn Labour too whose official policy is still Brexit rather than revoke and Remain or EUref2 than over 58% of voters backed pro Brexit parties in the European elections.
At the last general election 84% voted for the pro Brexit Tories, Corbyn Labour or UKIP.
In Peterborough on Thursday the pro Brexit Corbyn Labour, Brexit Party and Tories and UKIP won 82% of the vote combined.
In none of those elections did the pro Revoke or EUref2 LDs, Greens, CUK, SNP and Plaid combined get anywhere near 51% of the vote or more
Being pro-Brexit is not the same as being pro-No Deal Brexit. Whether you like it or not parties opposed to a No Deal Brexit consistently get more votes than those in favour of it. There’s no way round that, I’m afraid.
Since the country is split three ways on this subject that is true of ALL positions.
Parties opposed to revoke consistently get more votes than those in favour of it. Parties opposed to second referendum consistently get more votes than those in favour of it. Parties opposed to May's soft Brexit deal consistently get more votes than those in favour of it.
I see Elizabeth Warren has shortened today on BF to under 10, presumably because of her strong Iowa poll (though it wasn't that impressive). I think she should be same odds as Buttigieg and close to Harris, so fair play there.
Should Sanders really be the same as Harris/Buttigieg? His fundraising was much stronger in Q1 and his polling is much better. I get he is seen as having less room to grow due to his sky-high recognition already, but I think that's a bit harsh. I also think people keep making useless comparisons to his 2016 numbers which ignore the fact that he was one of two (or three) candidates then - not one of 20.
It's partly the Iowa poll, but also she's putting in really strong media performances. The previous odds just didn't price in what an effective candidate she is IMHO.
Is this your official "forget Amy, Elizabeth's where it's at" comment?
There's no doubt that we would pay the amount legally due. What's up for debate is the amount paid for the transition period. If we are leaving without a deal, that obviously isn't needed.
Errr there is doubt about that, actually. Boris is swearing that we'll keep the whole lot, hah!
Hopefully he's just posturing, and we can avoid getting slapped down in International Arbitration.
Pelosi is not the problem, it’s the Irish American lobby. That will be there for a very long time to come. And there is no way round it.
The Irish American lobby is focused around Boston and New York and now overwhelmingly Democrat, thus Republicans are less influenced by it and more pro Brexit
The Midwestern states have significant Irish American populations.
Pelosi is not the problem, it’s the Irish American lobby. That will be there for a very long time to come. And there is no way round it.
The Irish American lobby is focused around Boston and New York and now overwhelmingly Democrat, thus Republicans are less influenced by it and more pro Brexit
The Midwestern states have significant Irish American populations.
No Midwestern state has an over 15% Irish American population, 9 Northeastern states do
Pelosi is not the problem, it’s the Irish American lobby. That will be there for a very long time to come. And there is no way round it.
The Irish American lobby is focused around Boston and New York and now overwhelmingly Democrat, thus Republicans are less influenced by it and more pro Brexit
The Midwestern states have significant Irish American populations.
No Midwestern state has an over 15% Irish American population, 9 Northeastern states do
Ummm: surely you need to think at a Congressional District level, as the House of Representatives needs to support an FTA.
There's no doubt that we would pay the amount legally due. What's up for debate is the amount paid for the transition period. If we are leaving without a deal, that obviously isn't needed.
Errr there is doubt about that, actually. Boris is swearing that we'll keep the whole lot, hah!
Hopefully he's just posturing, and we can avoid getting slapped down in International Arbitration.
Getting slapped down in International Arbitration would count as a success, because it presupposes that we haven't already capitulated to the EU's terms in order to get out of the No Deal situation.
There's no doubt that we would pay the amount legally due. What's up for debate is the amount paid for the transition period. If we are leaving without a deal, that obviously isn't needed.
Errr there is doubt about that, actually. Boris is swearing that we'll keep the whole lot, hah!
Hopefully he's just posturing, and we can avoid getting slapped down in International Arbitration.
Getting slapped down in International Arbitration would count as a success, because it presupposes that we haven't already capitulated to the EU's terms in order to get out of the No Deal situation.
With all due respect William, it wouldn't be that bad.
People would not be dying in the streets. Medicine and food would not become scarce. On the contrary, it would in all likelihood be an unpleasant slow moving car crash.
My scenario looks roughly like this: falling pound on No Deal helps stimulate British exports (yay!), but results in goods in the shops becoming more expensive (boo!). This squeezes consumer spending, which (given the unbalanced nature of the British economy) tips us into recession. Simply: lower domestic demand will outweigh higher foreign demand.
Our recession will look like Spain's in 2011. Only we'll be fortunate enough to have our own currency, and our imbalances aren't as bad at the start of the process.
No Deal Brexit will effectively rebalance the UK economy. Just in a rather more abrupt and unpleasant way than should have been the case.
Of course, this ignores the nightmare scenario where recession leads to Corbyn/McDonnell leads to an unravelling of all the policies which led to Britain being an attractive place for business.
I don't think many Brexit Party voters who want Britain to 'take back control' would be too keen on Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power at Westminster.
There's a deal to be done between Farage and Sturgeon if it came to that. Farage always favoured much more Scottish devolution, and I think he'd be fine with the model originally proposed by the SNP in the Scotland's Place in Europe paper.
At the Brexit Party Edinburgh rally Farage even asked for SNP supporters and nationalists to 'lend the Brexit Party their votes' in the European Parliament elections as the Brexit Party took a neutral position on Scottish independence (although Farage was himself a Unionist) but he wanted the votes of nationalists who wanted a truly independent Scotland outside the UK and outside the EU.
In the event the Brexit Party came second in Scotland behind the SNP
Yes they got the UKIP/protest votes as it would not harm anyone for another numpty like Coburn to be in EU. Would be different if it was a real election where it actually counted for something.
The Brexit Party is still polling 15% in Scotland in the latest YouGov Westminster poll, more than both Labour and the LDs are currently polling in Scotland and just 1% behind the Scottish Tories
There's no doubt that we would pay the amount legally due. What's up for debate is the amount paid for the transition period. If we are leaving without a deal, that obviously isn't needed.
Errr there is doubt about that, actually. Boris is swearing that we'll keep the whole lot, hah!
Hopefully he's just posturing, and we can avoid getting slapped down in International Arbitration.
Getting slapped down in International Arbitration would count as a success, because it presupposes that we haven't already capitulated to the EU's terms in order to get out of the No Deal situation.
With all due respect William, it wouldn't be that bad.
People would not be dying in the streets. Medicine and food would not become scarce. On the contrary, it would in all likelihood be an unpleasant slow moving car crash.
My scenario looks roughly like this: falling pound on No Deal helps stimulate British exports (yay!), but results in goods in the shops becoming more expensive (boo!). This squeezes consumer spending, which (given the unbalanced nature of the British economy) tips us into recession. Simply: lower domestic demand will outweigh higher foreign demand.
Our recession will look like Spain's in 2011. Only we'll be fortunate enough to have our own currency, and our imbalances aren't as bad at the start of the process.
No Deal Brexit will effectively rebalance the UK economy. Just in a rather more abrupt and unpleasant way than should have been the case.
Of course, this ignores the nightmare scenario where recession leads to Corbyn/McDonnell leads to an unravelling of all the policies which led to Britain being an attractive place for business.
You're thinking about it too much in purely economic terms. In a No Deal scenario, the British state would have more on its plate than it can handle. It's not economic failure you need to watch for so much as state failure.
Bless your total ignorance. The Irish American lobby is incredibly powerful across the North East of the US, as well as the Mid-West. And is strong in both parties. There are a number of Congressional districts in red and blue states where you don’t get elected if it opposes you.
No it isn't, of the 9 US states with over 15% Irish American population every one was in the North East and every one bar Pennsylvania voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The Jewish, Hispanic, African American, Christian evangelical lobbies are now more powerful than the Irish American lobby and the Commerce and gun and evangelical lobbies certainly more influential with Republicans.
Indeed Trump was so unconcerned about the Irish fears over a hard border he told Varadkar last week that he wished him well with his country's border wall after Brexit
* Them voting for Hilary Clinton is a non sequitur in this context. * Trump's unconcern is a non sequitur in this context. * 9 states may have 15% or more Irish Americans, but 30-odd have 10% or more.
Finally before I go to sleep, oddly in the event of no deal I expect gilt yields to fall quite significantly. There will be a flight to safety and probably another round of QE.
In the event of no deal does GBP rise or fall?
Yes.
That was most helpful. I now have only two possibilities to choose from...
Bless your total ignorance. The Irish American lobby is incredibly powerful across the North East of the US, as well as the Mid-West. And is strong in both parties. There are a number of Congressional districts in red and blue states where you don’t get elected if it opposes you.
No it isn't, of the 9 US states with over 15% Irish American population every one was in the North East and every one bar Pennsylvania voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The Jewish, Hispanic, African American, Christian evangelical lobbies are now more powerful than the Irish American lobby and the Commerce and gun and evangelical lobbies certainly more influential with Republicans.
Indeed Trump was so unconcerned about the Irish fears over a hard border he told Varadkar last week that he wished him well with his country's border wall after Brexit
* Them voting for Hilary Clinton is a non sequitur in this context. * Trump's unconcern is a non sequitur in this context. * 9 states may have 15% or more Irish Americans, but 30-odd have 10% or more.
All this ignores the fact that Parliament is not going to pass any FTA that is acceptable to the US.
I might also point out that the US has not, of late, treated its FTA partners with much in the way of respect.
Bless your total ignorance. The Irish American lobby is incredibly powerful across the North East of the US, as well as the Mid-West. And is strong in both parties. There are a number of Congressional districts in red and blue states where you don’t get elected if it opposes you.
No it isn't, of the 9 US states with over 15% Irish American population every one was in the North East and every one bar Pennsylvania voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The Jewish, Hispanic, African American, Christian evangelical lobbies are now more powerful than the Irish American lobby and the Commerce and gun and evangelical lobbies certainly more influential with Republicans.
Indeed Trump was so unconcerned about the Irish fears over a hard border he told Varadkar last week that he wished him well with his country's border wall after Brexit
* Them voting for Hilary Clinton is a non sequitur in this context. * Trump's unconcern is a non sequitur in this context. * 9 states may have 15% or more Irish Americans, but 30-odd have 10% or more.
All this ignores the fact that Parliament is not going to pass any FTA that is acceptable to the US.
I might also point out that the US has not, of late, treated its FTA partners with much in the way of respect.
You are Mr Chirpy Cheerful tonight, I think... Where are you moving to, btw? Staying in LA or somewhere else?
Bless your total ignorance. The Irish American lobby is incredibly powerful across the North East of the US, as well as the Mid-West. And is strong in both parties. There are a number of Congressional districts in red and blue states where you don’t get elected if it opposes you.
No it isn't, of the 9 US states with over 15% Irish American population every one was in the North East and every one bar Pennsylvania voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The Jewish, Hispanic, African American, Christian evangelical lobbies are now more powerful than the Irish American lobby and the Commerce and gun and evangelical lobbies certainly more influential with Republicans.
Indeed Trump was so unconcerned about the Irish fears over a hard border he told Varadkar last week that he wished him well with his country's border wall after Brexit
* Them voting for Hilary Clinton is a non sequitur in this context. * Trump's unconcern is a non sequitur in this context. * 9 states may have 15% or more Irish Americans, but 30-odd have 10% or more.
All this ignores the fact that Parliament is not going to pass any FTA that is acceptable to the US.
I might also point out that the US has not, of late, treated its FTA partners with much in the way of respect.
You are Mr Chirpy Cheerful tonight, I think... Where are you moving to, btw? Staying in LA or somewhere else?
Still in LA. Still in sunny Brentwood. I was at the beach yesterday, and the kids were hanging out by the pool today.
"When Channel 4 finishes its redistribution of staff, only a relatively small number of the 300 are expected to move from its London HQ in Horseferry Road, Victoria. It is understood that about 40% of the 300 who will take up posts in the regions will be workers who were previously working for outsourced units, including technical and IT operations. If the proportion of London-based staff seeking redundancy remains at the expected 80% to 90% level overall, then only between 20 and 40 staff will end up moving out of the capital."
You are Mr Chirpy Cheerful tonight, I think... Where are you moving to, btw? Staying in LA or somewhere else?
Still in LA. Still in sunny Brentwood. I was at the beach yesterday, and the kids were hanging out by the pool today.
How's the weather in London?
I am currently not in London, but I am in the South East. Tomorrow I will be in London, and then I will be somewhere else. Unfortunately trains will be involved, but I have a book, a tablet and earplugs and will keep my head down to avoid the drunks, vapers, hen nights, football fans, and the girl telling her friend on the mobile phone that her ex is a wrong-un and she deserves better but she is keeping it real. Train travel is not the bucolic sojourn that Betjeman would depict...
The weather in London is currently 14 degrees C, cold, dark and raining. It's dark because it is 2:30am and I must go to bed. Laters, alligators...
Gove is out to 30 with the Betfair Exchange overnight ... he looks completely washed up as a credible candidate for the Tory Leadership and might best be advised to simply withdraw, the big prize is simply never now going to be his.
I see Elizabeth Warren has shortened today on BF to under 10, presumably because of her strong Iowa poll (though it wasn't that impressive). I think she should be same odds as Buttigieg and close to Harris, so fair play there.
Should Sanders really be the same as Harris/Buttigieg? His fundraising was much stronger in Q1 and his polling is much better. I get he is seen as having less room to grow due to his sky-high recognition already, but I think that's a bit harsh. I also think people keep making useless comparisons to his 2016 numbers which ignore the fact that he was one of two (or three) candidates then - not one of 20.
It's partly the Iowa poll, but also she's putting in really strong media performances. The previous odds just didn't price in what an effective candidate she is IMHO.
Is this your official "forget Amy, Elizabeth's where it's at" comment?
That said, now that Biden is in the race KLOBUCHAR is getting big-footed for the whole electable moderate thing, so she really needs Biden to eat his own head to be in with a chance.
Gove is out to 30 with the Betfair Exchange overnight ... he looks completely washed up as a credible candidate for the Tory Leadership and might best be advised to simply withdraw, the big prize is simply never now going to be his.
If nothing has changed then that is an excellent price, so the question is, has anything changed? Does the market know that Gove is about to withdraw, or is it guessing? If Gove does nothing then he should at least get over the next hurdle, which is to have eight supporters when nominations close at 5 o'clock this afternoon.
"When Channel 4 finishes its redistribution of staff, only a relatively small number of the 300 are expected to move from its London HQ in Horseferry Road, Victoria. It is understood that about 40% of the 300 who will take up posts in the regions will be workers who were previously working for outsourced units, including technical and IT operations. If the proportion of London-based staff seeking redundancy remains at the expected 80% to 90% level overall, then only between 20 and 40 staff will end up moving out of the capital."
I am sort of pleased....it shows that moving the broadcaster away from the bubble will generate creative jobs in the new locations - that should help to freshen the organisation up and bring new talent in......too much UK media is dominated by London
That said, now that Biden is in the race KLOBUCHAR is getting big-footed for the whole electable moderate thing, so she really needs Biden to eat his own head to be in with a chance.
Yeah, but Biden (after a strong start) is stuttering hard. And Klobuchar is not benefiting because, although she's not a bad candidate, she doesn't have (errr) IT.
IT is a very hard to define thing. Has a candidate ever made the hairs on the back of your neck ever stood on end? (As Obama did with "there are no red states and blue states" speech.) Or has the candidate done something which (for positive reasons) get replayed and replayed and replayed on YouTube?
Klobuchar is competent. And moderate. And electable. But she doesn't excite.
In this race, there are two exciters: Elizabeth Warren, who is super bright and a policy wonk, and who is going down a storm. And Pete Buttigieg, who is incredibly engaging and (yes) makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck when you hear him talk.
Sanders was an exciter. But his time has passed. Biden was never an exciter. He's just a name that people remember from the Obama era.
I suspect Iowa will be a four way tie between Buttigieg, Warren, Biden and Sanders. And that will be a deathknell for the old white guys. They were only up there because people thought they were winners. Once the "winner" mantle is removed, they are nothing.
Who will win between Buttigieg and Warren? I don't know. But those are the guys I'd tip to be fighting it out past Super Tuesday.
"When Channel 4 finishes its redistribution of staff, only a relatively small number of the 300 are expected to move from its London HQ in Horseferry Road, Victoria. It is understood that about 40% of the 300 who will take up posts in the regions will be workers who were previously working for outsourced units, including technical and IT operations. If the proportion of London-based staff seeking redundancy remains at the expected 80% to 90% level overall, then only between 20 and 40 staff will end up moving out of the capital."
I am sort of pleased....it shows that moving the broadcaster away from the bubble will generate creative jobs in the new locations - that should help to freshen the organisation up and bring new talent in......too much UK media is dominated by London
Does it? Are these creative jobs or administrative and accounting? Still, I suppose new jobs is good for the regions but where is the net gain? We need to be creating new jobs with £50 million, not shuffling the old ones around.
"When Channel 4 finishes its redistribution of staff, only a relatively small number of the 300 are expected to move from its London HQ in Horseferry Road, Victoria. It is understood that about 40% of the 300 who will take up posts in the regions will be workers who were previously working for outsourced units, including technical and IT operations. If the proportion of London-based staff seeking redundancy remains at the expected 80% to 90% level overall, then only between 20 and 40 staff will end up moving out of the capital."
I am sort of pleased....it shows that moving the broadcaster away from the bubble will generate creative jobs in the new locations - that should help to freshen the organisation up and bring new talent in......too much UK media is dominated by London
To be fair, a lot of creative work already happens outside the capital. There are a lot of production companies that do work outside London, where costs are lower.
What is all in London is: advertising, post production and commissioning.
That said, now that Biden is in the race KLOBUCHAR is getting big-footed for the whole electable moderate thing, so she really needs Biden to eat his own head to be in with a chance.
Yeah, but Biden (after a strong start) is stuttering hard. And Klobuchar is not benefiting because, although she's not a bad candidate, she doesn't have (errr) IT.
IT is a very hard to define thing. Has a candidate ever made the hairs on the back of your neck ever stood on end? (As Obama did with "there are no red states and blue states" speech.) Or has the candidate done something which (for positive reasons) get replayed and replayed and replayed on YouTube?
Klobuchar is competent. And moderate. And electable. But she doesn't excite.
In this race, there are two exciters: Elizabeth Warren, who is super bright and a policy wonk, and who is going down a storm. And Pete Buttigieg, who is incredibly engaging and (yes) makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck when you hear him talk.
Sanders was an exciter. But his time has passed. Biden was never an exciter. He's just a name that people remember from the Obama era.
I suspect Iowa will be a four way tie between Buttigieg, Warren, Biden and Sanders. And that will be a deathknell for the old white guys. They were only up there because people thought they were winners. Once the "winner" mantle is removed, they are nothing.
Who will win between Buttigieg and Warren? I don't know. But those are the guys I'd tip to be fighting it out past Super Tuesday.
Sanders isn't an exciter but... Buttigieg is?!
Admittedly I haven't checked in recently but Buttigieg problem has been that he is the candidate of middle class white people, his BAME support is impressive for all the wrong reasons.
Hoping for a Sanders - Warren match up myself but I think Biden will end up facing one of them.
That said, now that Biden is in the race KLOBUCHAR is getting big-footed for the whole electable moderate thing, so she really needs Biden to eat his own head to be in with a chance.
Yeah, but Biden (after a strong start) is stuttering hard. And Klobuchar is not benefiting because, although she's not a bad candidate, she doesn't have (errr) IT.
IT is a very hard to define thing. Has a candidate ever made the hairs on the back of your neck ever stood on end? (As Obama did with "there are no red states and blue states" speech.) Or has the candidate done something which (for positive reasons) get replayed and replayed and replayed on YouTube?
Klobuchar is competent. And moderate. And electable. But she doesn't excite.
In this race, there are two exciters: Elizabeth Warren, who is super bright and a policy wonk, and who is going down a storm. And Pete Buttigieg, who is incredibly engaging and (yes) makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck when you hear him talk.
Sanders was an exciter. But his time has passed. Biden was never an exciter. He's just a name that people remember from the Obama era.
I suspect Iowa will be a four way tie between Buttigieg, Warren, Biden and Sanders. And that will be a deathknell for the old white guys. They were only up there because people thought they were winners. Once the "winner" mantle is removed, they are nothing.
Who will win between Buttigieg and Warren? I don't know. But those are the guys I'd tip to be fighting it out past Super Tuesday.
Kamala Harris on a good day? Watching her video clips, she seems the most variable. Like a skilled boxer with no knockout punch. Or like the skilled lawyer she is, a better metaphor is building up a case in cross-examination but then stopping short to save something for her final summing up to the jury. Beto's star shot across the sky but seems to have faded. Andrew Yang intrigues me in that his price seems relatively short for no readily identifiable reason, like Andrea Leadsom.
But Iowa is eight months away. I can't see anyone worth backing, though I'd agree that Sanders and Biden are only contenders on name recognition. My pockets are not deep enough to tie up my bank for a year laying them.
Gove is out to 30 with the Betfair Exchange overnight ... he looks completely washed up as a credible candidate for the Tory Leadership and might best be advised to simply withdraw, the big prize is simply never now going to be his.
If nothing has changed then that is an excellent price, so the question is, has anything changed? Does the market know that Gove is about to withdraw, or is it guessing? If Gove does nothing then he should at least get over the next hurdle, which is to have eight supporters when nominations close at 5 o'clock this afternoon.
Two of of the main reasons the Betfair Exchange is so often quoted as being the best current indicator of odds in a particular market is firstly that it is very active, often far more so than any individual or even grouping of bookmakers, secondly it is often far more responsive to events. Currently its "Next Prime Minister after May" market has more than £1.1 million of matched bets and its odds of 30 (29/1 in old money) is considerably greater than most bookies who in the main offer odds of between 15/1 and 25/1. It's not difficult to arrive at odds of 30 ... put simply, this equates to Gove having say a 5/1 chance (or 16.7% probability) of making the final 2 candidates to be selected by the Tory faithful, coupled with say a 4/1 chance (or 20% probabiity) of him going on to win the contest outright. Taken together, these two hurdles, applying the odds suggested, work out to be ... yes ... a 29/1 shot.
That said, now that Biden is in the race KLOBUCHAR is getting big-footed for the whole electable moderate thing, so she really needs Biden to eat his own head to be in with a chance.
Yeah, but Biden (after a strong start) is stuttering hard. And Klobuchar is not benefiting because, although she's not a bad candidate, she doesn't have (errr) IT.
IT is a very hard to define thing. Has a candidate ever made the hairs on the back of your neck ever stood on end? (As Obama did with "there are no red states and blue states" speech.) Or has the candidate done something which (for positive reasons) get replayed and replayed and replayed on YouTube?
Klobuchar is competent. And moderate. And electable. But she doesn't excite.
In this race, there are two exciters: Elizabeth Warren, who is super bright and a policy wonk, and who is going down a storm. And Pete Buttigieg, who is incredibly engaging and (yes) makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck when you hear him talk.
Sanders was an exciter. But his time has passed. Biden was never an exciter. He's just a name that people remember from the Obama era.
I suspect Iowa will be a four way tie between Buttigieg, Warren, Biden and Sanders. And that will be a deathknell for the old white guys. They were only up there because people thought they were winners. Once the "winner" mantle is removed, they are nothing.
Who will win between Buttigieg and Warren? I don't know. But those are the guys I'd tip to be fighting it out past Super Tuesday.
Sanders isn't an exciter but... Buttigieg is?!
Admittedly I haven't checked in recently but Buttigieg problem has been that he is the candidate of middle class white people, his BAME support is impressive for all the wrong reasons.
Hoping for a Sanders - Warren match up myself but I think Biden will end up facing one of them.
Buttigieg had no problems getting 80% of the vote in a very BAME city, and Obama loves him. So, I think he'll do fine there (in the longer term).
Sadly, Sanders and Warren fish too much in the same pool, so I think your wish is unlikely to be granted.
I know my view is a minority one, but I think neither Biden nor Sanders will still be in the race (in any meaningful way) post Super Tuesday. They are popular because they are popular. Once that is removed, they are nothing.
That said, now that Biden is in the race KLOBUCHAR is getting big-footed for the whole electable moderate thing, so she really needs Biden to eat his own head to be in with a chance.
Yeah, but Biden (after a strong start) is stuttering hard. And Klobuchar is not benefiting because, although she's not a bad candidate, she doesn't have (errr) IT.
IT is a very hard to define thing. Has a candidate ever made the hairs on the back of your neck ever stood on end? (As Obama did with "there are no red states and blue states" speech.) Or has the candidate done something which (for positive reasons) get replayed and replayed and replayed on YouTube?
Klobuchar is competent. And moderate. And electable. But she doesn't excite.
In this race, there are two exciters: Elizabeth Warren, who is super bright and a policy wonk, and who is going down a storm. And Pete Buttigieg, who is incredibly engaging and (yes) makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck when you hear him talk.
Sanders was an exciter. But his time has passed. Biden was never an exciter. He's just a name that people remember from the Obama era.
I suspect Iowa will be a four way tie between Buttigieg, Warren, Biden and Sanders. And that will be a deathknell for the old white guys. They were only up there because people thought they were winners. Once the "winner" mantle is removed, they are nothing.
Who will win between Buttigieg and Warren? I don't know. But those are the guys I'd tip to be fighting it out past Super Tuesday.
Kamala Harris on a good day? Watching her video clips, she seems the most variable. Like a skilled boxer with no knockout punch. Or like the skilled lawyer she is, a better metaphor is building up a case in cross-examination but then stopping short to save something for her final summing up to the jury. Beto's star shot across the sky but seems to have faded. Andrew Yang intrigues me in that his price seems relatively short for no readily identifiable reason, like Andrea Leadsom.
But Iowa is eight months away. I can't see anyone worth backing, though I'd agree that Sanders and Biden are only contenders on name recognition. My pockets are not deep enough to tie up my bank for a year laying them.
I agree. Liberals across America have had the Kamala Harris vs William Barr YouTube clip on repeat. It's like a secret greeting at dinner parties - have you seen it (everyone's seen it - the only question is how many times).
Yes, she could break through. Harris, Buttigieg and Warren have all impressed. (As has Yang.)
Brooker. Klobuchar. Gillibrand. Hickenlooper. They've all been invisible.
That said, now that Biden is in the race KLOBUCHAR is getting big-footed for the whole electable moderate thing, so she really needs Biden to eat his own head to be in with a chance.
Yeah, but Biden (after a strong start) is stuttering hard. And Klobuchar is not benefiting because, although she's not a bad candidate, she doesn't have (errr) IT.
IT is a very hard to define thing. Has a candidate ever made the hairs on the back of your neck ever stood on end? (As Obama did with "there are no red states and blue states" speech.) Or has the candidate done something which (for positive reasons) get replayed and replayed and replayed on YouTube?
Klobuchar is competent. And moderate. And electable. But she doesn't excite.
In this race, there are two exciters: Elizabeth Warren, who is super bright and a policy wonk, and who is going down a storm. And Pete Buttigieg, who is incredibly engaging and (yes) makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck when you hear him talk.
Sanders was an exciter. But his time has passed. Biden was never an exciter. He's just a name that people remember from the Obama era.
I suspect Iowa will be a four way tie between Buttigieg, Warren, Biden and Sanders. And that will be a deathknell for the old white guys. They were only up there because people thought they were winners. Once the "winner" mantle is removed, they are nothing.
Who will win between Buttigieg and Warren? I don't know. But those are the guys I'd tip to be fighting it out past Super Tuesday.
My last job title was “Director of IT”
I agree that polling this far out is mostly name recognition, we’ll have a better idea who’s seriously in the race after the first couple of primaries.
Admittedly I haven't checked in recently but Buttigieg problem has been that he is the candidate of middle class white people, his BAME support is impressive for all the wrong reasons.
Hoping for a Sanders - Warren match up myself but I think Biden will end up facing one of them.
Buttigieg had no problems getting 80% of the vote in a very BAME city, and Obama loves him. So, I think he'll do fine there (in the longer term).
Sadly, Sanders and Warren fish too much in the same pool, so I think your wish is unlikely to be granted.
I know my view is a minority one, but I think neither Biden nor Sanders will still be in the race (in any meaningful way) post Super Tuesday. They are popular because they are popular. Once that is removed, they are nothing.
Was that by virtue of being a democrat candidate though or has he beaten others with BAME voters in a more neutral contest? (say democrat vs democrat) and surely Biden is dominating the friend of the first black president badge...
Yeah I can't see Sanders vs Warren happening at all, although I do think one survives and eats the others vote if things do become elimination. Sanders best chance may be a long contest and a split field, he needs others to spread out whilst he just puts a bit on. This may be Buttigieg's route without BAME support as well though, or any semi popular candidate...
Maybe not quite Baemy...
Edit: I don't think Sanders popularity will fold easily as he represents a group or wing of the party (in a less replaceable way than Biden) If he is clearly losing and Warren can do it that could kill him off though.
That said, now that Biden is in the race KLOBUCHAR is getting big-footed for the whole electable moderate thing, so she really needs Biden to eat his own head to be in with a chance.
Yeah, but Biden (after a strong start) is stuttering hard. And Klobuchar is not benefiting because, although she's not a bad candidate, she doesn't have (errr) IT.
IT is a very hard to define thing. Has a candidate ever made the hairs on the back of your neck ever stood on end? (As Obama did with "there are no red states and blue states" speech.) Or has the candidate done something which (for positive reasons) get replayed and replayed and replayed on YouTube?
Klobuchar is competent. And moderate. And electable. But she doesn't excite.
In this race, there are two exciters: Elizabeth Warren, who is super bright and a policy wonk, and who is going down a storm. And Pete Buttigieg, who is incredibly engaging and (yes) makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck when you hear him talk.
Sanders was an exciter. But his time has passed. Biden was never an exciter. He's just a name that people remember from the Obama era.
I suspect Iowa will be a four way tie between Buttigieg, Warren, Biden and Sanders. And that will be a deathknell for the old white guys. They were only up there because people thought they were winners. Once the "winner" mantle is removed, they are nothing.
Who will win between Buttigieg and Warren? I don't know. But those are the guys I'd tip to be fighting it out past Super Tuesday.
Apart from the last bit, sounds about right. Too early to tell who’ll be fighting it out past Super Tuesday, though, and Iowa isn’t exactly the whole game so perhaps best not to over interpret a single state poll.
This sort of thing isn’t going to help Biden in Iowa: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/warren-booker-democrats-iowa-2020-1358526 Front-runner Joe Biden, who led the crowded Democratic presidential field in the Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll, had virtually no presence at the party event. His campaign said the former vice president missed the dinner due to his granddaughter‘s high school graduation...
Gove is out to 30 with the Betfair Exchange overnight ... he looks completely washed up as a credible candidate for the Tory Leadership and might best be advised to simply withdraw, the big prize is simply never now going to be his.
If nothing has changed then that is an excellent price, so the question is, has anything changed? Does the market know that Gove is about to withdraw, or is it guessing? If Gove does nothing then he should at least get over the next hurdle, which is to have eight supporters when nominations close at 5 o'clock this afternoon.
Two of of the main reasons the Betfair Exchange is so often quoted as being the best current indicator of odds in a particular market is firstly that it is very active, often far more so than any individual or even grouping of bookmakers, secondly it is often far more responsive to events. Currently its "Next Prime Minister after May" market has more than £1.1 million of matched bets and its odds of 30 (29/1 in old money) is considerably greater than most bookies who in the main offer odds of between 15/1 and 25/1. It's not difficult to arrive at odds of 30 ... put simply, this equates to Gove having say a 5/1 chance (or 16.7% probability) of making the final 2 candidates to be selected by the Tory faithful, coupled with say a 4/1 chance (or 20% probabiity) of him going on to win the contest outright. Taken together, these two hurdles, applying the odds suggested, work out to be ... yes ... a 29/1 shot.
Admittedly I haven't checked in recently but Buttigieg problem has been that he is the candidate of middle class white people, his BAME support is impressive for all the wrong reasons.
Hoping for a Sanders - Warren match up myself but I think Biden will end up facing one of them.
Buttigieg had no problems getting 80% of the vote in a very BAME city, and Obama loves him. So, I think he'll do fine there (in the longer term).
Sadly, Sanders and Warren fish too much in the same pool, so I think your wish is unlikely to be granted.
I know my view is a minority one, but I think neither Biden nor Sanders will still be in the race (in any meaningful way) post Super Tuesday. They are popular because they are popular. Once that is removed, they are nothing.
Was that by virtue of being a democrat candidate though or has he beaten others with BAME voters in a more neutral contest? (say democrat vs democrat) and surely Biden is dominating the friend of the first black president badge...
Yeah I can't see Sanders vs Warren happening at all, although I do think one survives and eats the others vote if things do become elimination. Sanders best chance may be a long contest and a split field, he needs others to spread out whilst he just puts a bit on...
Sanders has a solid core vote which isn’t going to easily abandon him, but he’s not going to edge ahead in a crowded field. And Warren is going to continue to erode his support among those who aren’t actually socialists, I think.
Comments
They can gamble with the futures of others as they have little to lose . Their attitude is fuck everyone else as long as they get to play Empire 2.0 .
In any case, expect the EU to take a an extremely hard line on everything the UK wants while this dispute is open. They'll get the money anyway. None of this will do us any good.
At the last general election 84% voted for the pro Brexit Tories, Corbyn Labour or UKIP.
In Peterborough on Thursday the pro Brexit Corbyn Labour, Brexit Party and Tories and UKIP won 82% of the vote combined.
In none of those elections did the pro Revoke or EUref2 LDs, Greens, CUK, SNP and Plaid combined get anywhere near 51% of the vote or more
Many poorer Leavers voted against their own self interest and will be thrown under a bus.
No deal Leave didnt though.
"If you look into the reports of why people use foodbanks it's very complicated, some of them didn't have money."
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ci92bcdrx7/YouGov - what might help on Brexit.pdf
In any case it's utter nonsense. As I've pointed out to you many times, support for 'no deal' is mostly frustration with the fact that the ERG have made actually leaving the EU such a complete mess. It is naive in the extreme, a schoolboy error, to assume that support for no deal would actually survive contact with the reality of no deal.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ci92bcdrx7/YouGov - what might help on Brexit.pdf
Not everything is about Brexit.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/everything-you-think-you-know-about-leavers-and-remainers-wrong
My point was that, as at the 2017 election, votes for Parliamentary seats are about far more than just Brexit. In this case the Labour Party playing up to the anti-Jewish minority in Peterborough sufficiently enough to win the vote.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/everything-you-think-you-know-about-leavers-and-remainers-wrong
However if it is a forced choice between No Deal or Revoke and Remain then No Deal can win, although I accept most voters still want Brexit with some form of Deal
Should Sanders really be the same as Harris/Buttigieg? His fundraising was much stronger in Q1 and his polling is much better. I get he is seen as having less room to grow due to his sky-high recognition already, but I think that's a bit harsh. I also think people keep making useless comparisons to his 2016 numbers which ignore the fact that he was one of two (or three) candidates then - not one of 20.
Choosing to share some of your sovereignty to work with others and allow your people to broaden their horizons with 27 other nations , to have that freedom to live and work there , the cultural and science links etc is something that should be treasured and not chucked away for some illusory prize.
The UK I’m afraid is entering a very dark chapter in its history . I don’t see this ending well, if the UK is taken down the road of no deal .
A vocal minority aided by a right wing press who have hijacked the EU ref to mean a complete severing of ties and no deal exit must be defeated.
A no deal will mean a complete fracturing of the UK , the divisions which are bad now will become even worse in that event .
The polling yesterday which showed that Biden was the choice of people who "hadn't been paying much attention" to the election also should really concern his team. (Both him and Sanders scored highly with people who haven't been paying much attention. Warren scored really highly with those paying a lot of attention, and Buttigieg and Harris were in the middle.) As we get nearer to the primaries, there are far fewer unengaged voters, which is good for Warren (and therefore Trump), and bad for Biden and Sanders.
So where
The evidence I was pointing to was a YouGov poll from late March which had voters preferring No Deal to Revoke 44% to 42%.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ci92bcdrx7/YouGov - what might help on Brexit.pdf
If MPs think they can just keep voting down the Withdrawal Agreement then ultimately revoke the Brexit most voters voted for altogether and keep most of their voters on side they may find they have another thing coming!
Parties opposed to revoke consistently get more votes than those in favour of it.
Parties opposed to second referendum consistently get more votes than those in favour of it.
Parties opposed to May's soft Brexit deal consistently get more votes than those in favour of it.
Hopefully he's just posturing, and we can avoid getting slapped down in International Arbitration.
People would not be dying in the streets. Medicine and food would not become scarce. On the contrary, it would in all likelihood be an unpleasant slow moving car crash.
My scenario looks roughly like this: falling pound on No Deal helps stimulate British exports (yay!), but results in goods in the shops becoming more expensive (boo!). This squeezes consumer spending, which (given the unbalanced nature of the British economy) tips us into recession. Simply: lower domestic demand will outweigh higher foreign demand.
Our recession will look like Spain's in 2011. Only we'll be fortunate enough to have our own currency, and our imbalances aren't as bad at the start of the process.
No Deal Brexit will effectively rebalance the UK economy. Just in a rather more abrupt and unpleasant way than should have been the case.
Of course, this ignores the nightmare scenario where recession leads to Corbyn/McDonnell leads to an unravelling of all the policies which led to Britain being an attractive place for business.
* Trump's unconcern is a non sequitur in this context.
* 9 states may have 15% or more Irish Americans, but 30-odd have 10% or more.
I might also point out that the US has not, of late, treated its FTA partners with much in the way of respect.
How's the weather in London?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/09/channels-4s-move-out-of-london-will-cost-at-least-50m
"When Channel 4 finishes its redistribution of staff, only a relatively small number of the 300 are expected to move from its London HQ in Horseferry Road, Victoria. It is understood that about 40% of the 300 who will take up posts in the regions will be workers who were previously working for outsourced units, including technical and IT operations.
If the proportion of London-based staff seeking redundancy remains at the expected 80% to 90% level overall, then only between 20 and 40 staff will end up moving out of the capital."
The weather in London is currently 14 degrees C, cold, dark and raining. It's dark because it is 2:30am and I must go to bed. Laters, alligators...
IT is a very hard to define thing. Has a candidate ever made the hairs on the back of your neck ever stood on end? (As Obama did with "there are no red states and blue states" speech.) Or has the candidate done something which (for positive reasons) get replayed and replayed and replayed on YouTube?
Klobuchar is competent. And moderate. And electable. But she doesn't excite.
In this race, there are two exciters: Elizabeth Warren, who is super bright and a policy wonk, and who is going down a storm. And Pete Buttigieg, who is incredibly engaging and (yes) makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck when you hear him talk.
Sanders was an exciter. But his time has passed. Biden was never an exciter. He's just a name that people remember from the Obama era.
I suspect Iowa will be a four way tie between Buttigieg, Warren, Biden and Sanders. And that will be a deathknell for the old white guys. They were only up there because people thought they were winners. Once the "winner" mantle is removed, they are nothing.
Who will win between Buttigieg and Warren? I don't know. But those are the guys I'd tip to be fighting it out past Super Tuesday.
What is all in London is: advertising, post production and commissioning.
Admittedly I haven't checked in recently but Buttigieg problem has been that he is the candidate of middle class white people, his BAME support is impressive for all the wrong reasons.
Hoping for a Sanders - Warren match up myself but I think Biden will end up facing one of them.
But Iowa is eight months away. I can't see anyone worth backing, though I'd agree that Sanders and Biden are only contenders on name recognition. My pockets are not deep enough to tie up my bank for a year laying them.
It's not difficult to arrive at odds of 30 ... put simply, this equates to Gove having say a 5/1 chance (or 16.7% probability) of making the final 2 candidates to be selected by the Tory faithful, coupled with say a 4/1 chance (or 20% probabiity) of him going on to win the contest outright. Taken together, these two hurdles, applying the odds suggested, work out to be ... yes ... a 29/1 shot.
Sadly, Sanders and Warren fish too much in the same pool, so I think your wish is unlikely to be granted.
I know my view is a minority one, but I think neither Biden nor Sanders will still be in the race (in any meaningful way) post Super Tuesday. They are popular because they are popular. Once that is removed, they are nothing.
Yes, she could break through. Harris, Buttigieg and Warren have all impressed. (As has Yang.)
Brooker. Klobuchar. Gillibrand. Hickenlooper. They've all been invisible.
I agree that polling this far out is mostly name recognition, we’ll have a better idea who’s seriously in the race after the first couple of primaries.
Yeah I can't see Sanders vs Warren happening at all, although I do think one survives and eats the others vote if things do become elimination. Sanders best chance may be a long contest and a split field, he needs others to spread out whilst he just puts a bit on. This may be Buttigieg's route without BAME support as well though, or any semi popular candidate...
Maybe not quite Baemy...
Edit: I don't think Sanders popularity will fold easily as he represents a group or wing of the party (in a less replaceable way than Biden) If he is clearly losing and Warren can do it that could kill him off though.
Too early to tell who’ll be fighting it out past Super Tuesday, though, and Iowa isn’t exactly the whole game so perhaps best not to over interpret a single state poll.
This sort of thing isn’t going to help Biden in Iowa:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/warren-booker-democrats-iowa-2020-1358526
Front-runner Joe Biden, who led the crowded Democratic presidential field in the Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll, had virtually no presence at the party event. His campaign said the former vice president missed the dinner due to his granddaughter‘s high school graduation...