@ScottyNational: Councils: Great news for councils to compensate not raising council tax as they'll now be allowed to print their own Yes badges #scotbudget
@ScottyNational: Councils: Great news for councils to compensate not raising council tax as they'll now be allowed to print their own Yes badges #scotbudget
Are yes badges the proposed currency of an independent Scotland, or was it "the millstone" Sterling?
@HTScotPol: Fancy that. @JohnSwinney announces Scottish income tax in 2016-17 will match that in UK
Swinney is agreeing GO is a genius and he cannot improve upon his income tax rates.
Hmm....The Scottish Rate Of Income Tax (SRIT) is an economic stinker but a political wonder. All UK income tax rates (basic, standard, high) are reduced in Scotland by 10%. The Scottish finance minister then has the right to nominate ONE AND ONLY ONE alternative rate to replace the lost 10%. He may not be more or less progressive by band - it's 'choose one number'. So...if he chose 9% then Scotland would get a tax cut (hooray) but also a significant spending cut (boo). If he chose 11% Scotland would pay more tax (boo) but get more spending (hooray). Either way he would be choosing deliberately to make some better off and some worse off in Scotland vs the rest of the UK. That will inevitably cause a big backlash whatever he chose. He can't win! Osborne is a cunning so and so / political genius - take your pick. He has all but forced Scotland to undermine the case for its own financial independence.
On the other hand it is a relatively simple way to devolve (and we are talking about devolution since as it happens we are one big united kingdom still) tax raising powers which everyone can understand.
Angela Merkel has told David Cameron that she will not give in to his demands for a ban on in-work benefits for EU migrants.
In a direct threat on the eve of the European Council, she said it cannot be done.
Mrs Merkel told the Bundestag lower house of parliament: "We don't want to, and we won't, call into question the core principles of European integration. These include in particular the principle of free movement and the principle of non-discrimination between European citizens."
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Union!
Why bring in crass allusions to nazis? How clever is that? I'll tell you how clever it is - its thick. Its doubly thick indeed infantile when the main criticism of Merkle is that she is encouraging immigration and integration - ie the opposite of nazi philosophy.
That 'savaging' started almost as soon as Clegg left the Rose Garden with Cameron winking at Tory attacks on the AV referendum and setting up the LD's .... who admittedly walked into the trap .... over tuition fees. I don't suppose at my age that I'll live to the see the Tories get the come-uppence royally due to them, but I really hope I do.
The LibDems deserved to lose the support of the voters, for treating them like schmucks for decades. They tried to perform the trick of riding two horses going in two directions. Which was fine while they never had to mount a nag. But when faced with the reality of performing this trick, they were unceremoniously dumped on their arses.
@HTScotPol: Fancy that. @JohnSwinney announces Scottish income tax in 2016-17 will match that in UK
Swinney is agreeing GO is a genius and he cannot improve upon his income tax rates.
Hmm....The Scottish Rate Of Income Tax (SRIT) is an economic stinker but a political wonder. All UK income tax rates (basic, standard, high) are reduced in Scotland by 10%. The Scottish finance minister then has the right to nominate ONE AND ONLY ONE alternative rate to replace the lost 10%. He may not be more or less progressive by band - it's 'choose one number'. So...if he chose 9% then Scotland would get a tax cut (hooray) but also a significant spending cut (boo). If he chose 11% Scotland would pay more tax (boo) but get more spending (hooray). Either way he would be choosing deliberately to make some better off and some worse off in Scotland vs the rest of the UK. That will inevitably cause a big backlash whatever he chose. He can't win! Osborne is a cunning so and so / political genius - take your pick. He has all but forced Scotland to undermine the case for its own financial independence.
On the other hand it is a relatively simple way to devolve (and we are talking about devolution since as it happens we are one big united kingdom still) tax raising powers which everyone can understand.
No, it's monumentally silly. The options for Scotland are 20/40/45, 19/39/44 (etc) or 21/41/46 (etc). Only in the devolution settlement are the top and bottom rates of tax linked like that...
@HTScotPol: Fancy that. @JohnSwinney announces Scottish income tax in 2016-17 will match that in UK
Swinney is agreeing GO is a genius and he cannot improve upon his income tax rates.
Hmm....The Scottish Rate Of Income Tax (SRIT) is an economic stinker but a political wonder. All UK income tax rates (basic, standard, high) are reduced in Scotland by 10%. The Scottish finance minister then has the right to nominate ONE AND ONLY ONE alternative rate to replace the lost 10%. He may not be more or less progressive by band - it's 'choose one number'. So...if he chose 9% then Scotland would get a tax cut (hooray) but also a significant spending cut (boo). If he chose 11% Scotland would pay more tax (boo) but get more spending (hooray). Either way he would be choosing deliberately to make some better off and some worse off in Scotland vs the rest of the UK. That will inevitably cause a big backlash whatever he chose. He can't win! Osborne is a cunning so and so / political genius - take your pick. He has all but forced Scotland to undermine the case for its own financial independence.
On the other hand it is a relatively simple way to devolve (and we are talking about devolution since as it happens we are one big united kingdom still) tax raising powers which everyone can understand.
No, it's monumentally silly. The options for Scotland are 20/40/45, 19/39/44 (etc) or 21/41/46 (etc). Only in the devolution settlement are the top and bottom rates of tax linked like that...
There are alot of arguments against independence. This is not one of them.
Sums up human beings perfectly. Quite how we can rear and then kill and eat fellow sentient mammals is quite perverse too.
If some higher intelligence pops along and then decides to treat us completely appallingly we would get our just deserts. More likely that we would have wiped ourselves out long before then though because we are such egotistical, selfish, horribly invasive, greedy things that have little regard for anything other than our selves.
The site selling the board game, dudeiwantthat.com, reads: "Cat-Opoly is a Monopoly for people who really, really, really like cats. And cat videos, cat memes, cat selfies, cat forums, cat Reddit threads..." The aim of the game is to buy as many cats as you can.
What a ridiculous idea. You can't buy a cat. You can invite a cat into your home, and, if on inspection the premises are of satisfactory quality and the staff are suitable, then the cat may decide to accept the invitation.
As a dog person I find it slightly surreal that one can buy a dog just like a kettle.
They would surely find it more perverse if we were at the top of the food chain and were not taking advantage of the healthy proteins, vitamins, minerals, and fats that meat eating affords. None of the famously long lived cultures of the world have been vegetarian.
During the General Election campaign itself we used only telephone polling for all our voting intention polls. Now in peace-time (outside of official campaign time) we are back to using both methods for our voting intention polls. Indeed we anticipate using online polling for the London mayoral election, as the youthful, highly transient population mostly living in rented housing make it less suited to survey by telephone...
Furthermore, the British Election Study, which is the one face to face survey on the EU referendum that’s taken place in the same time period, showed a large 17 point lead for remaining in the EU. On this occasion then, it looks as if two methodologies (phone and face-to-face) are showing the advantage currently with the “Remain” side while one methodology is not.
Therefore, in order to understand this apparent difference between the methodologies we undertook our own experiment, asking the referendum question on our online and telephone surveys. The results were telling – both sets of data used the same question, were run within days of each other, had the same demographic weights applied and were past vote weighted in the same way – but despite this, the online polling showed the public split on the issue (as it does in polls conducted by other pollsters online), whereas the telephone polling showed a large lead for “Remain”.
“On two occasions in almost a year, as a representative of local people, I have had the chance to put a question directly to him.
“It was a serious question I asked on behalf of undecided voters about the economic and employment consequences of the new EU deal – and all I get is the brush off.
“I asked a serious question about the EU and the Prime Minster makes a sixth form joke.”
@ScottyNational: Budget:Swinney demonstrates the SNP's commitment to progressive redistribution by progressively redistributing blame re inaction #ScotBudget
We should at this point declare that as a research consultancy we are method neutral – meaning that we use both online and telephone methodologies as well as face to face where appropriate. We match the methodology to the project on a case-by-case basis depending on which we feel is most appropriate for the client’s business and research objectives. All survey methodologies have their different strengths and weaknesses, making each more or less appropriate for certain types of challenges. During the General Election campaign itself we used only telephone polling for all our voting intention polls. Now in peace-time (outside of official campaign time) we are back to using both methods for our voting intention polls. Indeed we anticipate using online polling for the London mayoral election, as the youthful, highly transient population mostly living in rented housing make it less suited to survey by telephone. At a national level (where around half of voters are over the age of 55) telephone polling has the better record though: a telephone poll was most accurate at the 2010 General Election, at the 2011 AV referendum, at the Scottish independence referendum and was “least inaccurate” at this year’s General Election. Furthermore, the British Election Study, which is the one face to face survey on the EU referendum that’s taken place in the same time period, showed a large 17 point lead for remaining in the EU. On this occasion then, it looks as if two methodologies (phone and face-to-face) are showing the advantage currently with the “Remain” side while one methodology is not. Therefore, in order to understand this apparent difference between the methodologies we undertook our own experiment, asking the referendum question on our online and telephone surveys. The results were telling – both sets of data used the same question, were run within days of each other, had the same demographic weights applied and were past vote weighted in the same way – but despite this, the online polling showed the public split on the issue (as it does in polls conducted by other pollsters online), whereas the telephone polling showed a large lead for “Remain”.
Comres' polls weren't perfect, but you could have made alot of money off the Southwest regional one in particular (Which ended up being the key region that decided the flavour of the next Gov't). They emerge with more credit than Yougov or Survation, methinks.
We should at this point declare that as a research consultancy we are method neutral – meaning that we use both online and telephone methodologies as well as face to face where appropriate. We match the methodology to the project on a case-by-case basis depending on which we feel is most appropriate for the client’s business and research objectives. All survey methodologies have their different strengths and weaknesses, making each more or less appropriate for certain types of challenges. During the General Election campaign itself we used only telephone polling for all our voting intention polls. Now in peace-time (outside of official campaign time) we are back to using both methods for our voting intention polls. Indeed we anticipate using online polling for the London mayoral election, as the youthful, highly transient population mostly living in rented housing make it less suited to survey by telephone. At a national level (where around half of voters are over the age of 55) telephone polling has the better record though: a telephone poll was most accurate at the 2010 General Election, at the 2011 AV referendum, at the Scottish independence referendum and was “least inaccurate” at this year’s General Election. Furthermore, the British Election Study, which is the one face to face survey on the EU referendum that’s taken place in the same time period, showed a large 17 point lead for remaining in the EU. On this occasion then, it looks as if two methodologies (phone and face-to-face) are showing the advantage currently with the “Remain” side while one methodology is not. Therefore, in order to understand this apparent difference between the methodologies we undertook our own experiment, asking the referendum question on our online and telephone surveys. The results were telling – both sets of data used the same question, were run within days of each other, had the same demographic weights applied and were past vote weighted in the same way – but despite this, the online polling showed the public split on the issue (as it does in polls conducted by other pollsters online), whereas the telephone polling showed a large lead for “Remain”.
Comres' polls weren't perfect, but you could have made alot of money off the Southwest regional one in particular (Which ended up being the key region that decided the flavour of the next Gov't). They emerge with more credit than Yougov or Survation, methinks.
Winter is arriving bloody late this year, feels like a dark, wet and murky autumn still tbh.
I think it's remarkably mild. My alchemilla mollis is still growing as is my salvia super trouper. Some spring bulbs planted in earlier years are already growing strongly and the snowdrops are, as usual, out.
I was walking down Pattison Road yesterday, and the mild weather has totally thrown the trees off. They are all showing spring blossom.
I was sorry to read of your second resignation from the Labour Party – sorry, but not surprised. Like other Labour moderates, you’re taking time to adjust to your party’s terminal diagnosis. If we invoke Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’s famous five-stage model, your first resignation was an expression of “anger”, your decision to re-join an example of “bargaining” and your second resignation a manifestation of “depression”. I sincerely hope that “acceptance” soon follows.
I think none of us could quite believe that poll. But the Southwest was odd - I have no idea why Truro and Falmouth was 1-4 Tories for ages, bearing in mind it needed a swing TO the Lib Dems for it to go.
Winter is arriving bloody late this year, feels like a dark, wet and murky autumn still tbh.
I think it's remarkably mild. My alchemilla mollis is still growing as is my salvia super trouper. Some spring bulbs planted in earlier years are already growing strongly and the snowdrops are, as usual, out.
I was walking down Pattison Road yesterday, and the mild weather has totally thrown the trees off. They are all showing spring blossom.
I'm increasing noticing at PMQs that one can't assume they're Labour MPs. Ranil Jayawardena was very good - Tory for Hants NE. Very media friendly and eloquent.
The poll, undertaken by Beaufort Research for WalesOnline and the Western Mail, shows that just over a quarter of the Welsh population (26%) is likely to vote for the UK to stay in the EU regardless of any renegotiation, double the proportion who say they’ll vote for the UK to leave (13%).
A further three in 10 (31%) say how they vote will depend on the result of the discussions – 20% say they’ll vote for the UK to stay in the EU if they are satisfied with the outcome, while 11% say the reverse.
At the same time, a high proportion of the electorate in Wales (nearly three in 10) are either undecided on how they might vote (18%) or say they’re unlikely to vote at all (11%)
In other words, over 60% undecided. Quite why the current telephone polls imply that over 90% have made up their minds is a mystery.
I think none of us could quite believe that poll. But the Southwest was odd - I have no idea why Truro and Falmouth was 1-4 Tories for ages, bearing in mind it needed a swing TO the Lib Dems for it to go.
It was one of those seats where you felt UKIP might damage the Tories.
Previous Post on GOP Debate: Sorry if this article has already been linked, but this analysis of GOP establishment reaction to last night's debate is in stark contrast to that of both the wider reaction, and likely Iowa caucus attendees. Most striking is that most considered Rubio the winner, and most considered Cruz the loser. Furthermore, Rubio is seen as most Commander in Chief-ish by a country mile.
Seems clear whom the Establishment has picked. As noted in the article, Cruz has his track clear now, whereas Rubio is still contending with Bush and Christie in his. Once the latter clears, this becomes an almighty three-way with Trump.
Still living in hope that Trump's poll numbers reflect more non-primary voters, but alas anger is one of the strongest motivators, and they are angry.
Sums up human beings perfectly. Quite how we can rear and then kill and eat fellow sentient mammals is quite perverse too.
If some higher intelligence pops along and then decides to treat us completely appallingly we would get our just deserts. More likely that we would have wiped ourselves out long before then though because we are such egotistical, selfish, horribly invasive, greedy things that have little regard for anything other than our selves.
The site selling the board game, dudeiwantthat.com, reads: "Cat-Opoly is a Monopoly for people who really, really, really like cats. And cat videos, cat memes, cat selfies, cat forums, cat Reddit threads..." The aim of the game is to buy as many cats as you can.
What a ridiculous idea. You can't buy a cat. You can invite a cat into your home, and, if on inspection the premises are of satisfactory quality and the staff are suitable, then the cat may decide to accept the invitation.
As a dog person I find it slightly surreal that one can buy a dog just like a kettle.
They would surely find it more perverse if we were at the top of the food chain and were not taking advantage of the healthy proteins, vitamins, minerals, and fats that meat eating affords. None of the famously long lived cultures of the world have been vegetarian.
We're at the top of the food chain whether or not we eat meat. I mean, what natural predators do humans have nowadays?
I think none of us could quite believe that poll. But the Southwest was odd - I have no idea why Truro and Falmouth was 1-4 Tories for ages, bearing in mind it needed a swing TO the Lib Dems for it to go.
Those of us working the streets could certainly believe that poll....
At PMQs today he was on the just okay side of dire, which shows how low expectations are. He had a decent issue in concerns about the NHS but he did nothing with it. Cameron, the victor of 2015, swatted him away time and again.
At PMQs Cameron was red-faced, shouty, aggressive, repetitive and didn't answer the questions. Not a good look. Very off putting except to dedicated Tories.
In contrast Corbyn was dignified, respectful and asked detailed pertinent questions.
Dedicated Corbynistas would say Corbyn won hands down, but I suspect uncommitted voters would also say Corbyn came out the more attractive, whether you agree with his policies or not.
We must have been watching a different programme.
We see what we want to see. Human nature. But if one wants to bet successfully one has to take off one's coloured glasses and observe in a cold objective light.
I agree Lab win at Croydon Central at 6/4 is a value bet but Lab most seats at 4/1 is a MUCH higher value bet. I simply don't understand it. What am I missing?
I've learned the hard way that it is more successful to bet with the head than the heart. My betting and comments of the GE in May (see above) were as objective and quantified as I could manage. I had a massive spreadsheet updated daily with the latest polls. It was all rubbish of course. I was puzzled by the mismatch between the betting and the polls. Hence my plaintive cry of "I simply don't understand it. What am I missing?"
For the record, I am not a Labour supporter though, had I been, I would have voted for Corbyn. I am an active member of the LibDems delivering leaflets etc. However I will be voting for Zac as London Mayor. 1st preference will be LD out of loyalty but my important 2nd prefrence will go to Zac as I think he will make the best mayor.
My current best value bet is Biden for President which I got on at 800/1. Democrats must be better than evens for the presidency, and there must be a greater than 400/1 chance that Hillary pulls out (health, email, somehting else) and Biden picks it up. This is head not heart. Almost certainly won't win but good value I think.
I'll hold onto -ve Rubio, but I'll reback if the weather looks like it is swinging his way. Jeb Bush looks done... the problem for Rubio is he will hang round like a bad smell for too long picking up enough of his voters to stop him breaking out methinks.
Sums up human beings perfectly. Quite how we can rear and then kill and eat fellow sentient mammals is quite perverse too.
If some higher intelligence pops along and then decides to treat us completely appallingly we would get our just deserts. More likely that we would have wiped ourselves out long before then though because we are such egotistical, selfish, horribly invasive, greedy things that have little regard for anything other than our selves.
The site selling the board game, dudeiwantthat.com, reads: "Cat-Opoly is a Monopoly for people who really, really, really like cats. And cat videos, cat memes, cat selfies, cat forums, cat Reddit threads..." The aim of the game is to buy as many cats as you can.
What a ridiculous idea. You can't buy a cat. You can invite a cat into your home, and, if on inspection the premises are of satisfactory quality and the staff are suitable, then the cat may decide to accept the invitation.
As a dog person I find it slightly surreal that one can buy a dog just like a kettle.
They would surely find it more perverse if we were at the top of the food chain and were not taking advantage of the healthy proteins, vitamins, minerals, and fats that meat eating affords. None of the famously long lived cultures of the world have been vegetarian.
We're at the top of the food chain whether or not we eat meat. I mean, what natural predators do humans have nowadays?
Sums up human beings perfectly. Quite how we can rear and then kill and eat fellow sentient mammals is quite perverse too.
If some higher intelligence pops along and then decides to treat us completely appallingly we would get our just deserts. More likely that we would have wiped ourselves out long before then though because we are such egotistical, selfish, horribly invasive, greedy things that have little regard for anything other than our selves.
The site selling the board game, dudeiwantthat.com, reads: "Cat-Opoly is a Monopoly for people who really, really, really like cats. And cat videos, cat memes, cat selfies, cat forums, cat Reddit threads..." The aim of the game is to buy as many cats as you can.
What a ridiculous idea. You can't buy a cat. You can invite a cat into your home, and, if on inspection the premises are of satisfactory quality and the staff are suitable, then the cat may decide to accept the invitation.
As a dog person I find it slightly surreal that one can buy a dog just like a kettle.
They would surely find it more perverse if we were at the top of the food chain and were not taking advantage of the healthy proteins, vitamins, minerals, and fats that meat eating affords. None of the famously long lived cultures of the world have been vegetarian.
We're at the top of the food chain whether or not we eat meat. I mean, what natural predators do humans have nowadays?
Streptococcus pyogenes?
Well, they omitted to show that on the just-concluded BBC series "The Hunt"
Don't we have an NHS Winter Crisis every year? It certainly seems that way.
Yes indeed. Such calls no longer alarm me in the slightest, which no doubt is a mistake, but the NHS is perpetually in crisis as far as the news is concerned, I have no way, without taking a deep, detailed look at things, whether this crisis is as bad as the last crisis, or indeed if it is a crisis.
On earlier comments about PMQs and perceptions of the leaders, I haven't seen this session myself, but I would make the observation that it seems people have always said Cameron is red faced and shouty and that it will play badly with the public. Now, he's no great revered figure, but even if he was more red faced and shouty than usual I imagine any cost is priced in in terms of his perception.
Corbyn I generally find no real fault with presentationally (notwithstanding what are apparently terrible suits on occasion, but I've not seen one so bad it would diminish the entire effect) - he's got a quite soothing, authoritative voice and understated delivery which sometimes works well, and other times means he missed the opportunity to land a real blow, so his default performance level is probably best described as workmanlike, but unexceptional.
If only Mr Allen could have encouraged Tony and Gordon to step up and introduce PR when they had the chance.
What flavour of system produced those "results"? How can you take the votes cast under a non-proportional system and munge them into a completely different system and claim that the results are anything other than tripe?
If the last GE had been held under a proportional system, my vote could have been cast differently.
Quite true, people cast their votes differently in different voting systems. Under FPTP I suspect that many vote against rather than for a party, under STV you can cast a vote for who you really want without wasting it.
Don't we have an NHS Winter Crisis every year? It certainly seems that way.
Yes indeed. Such calls no longer alarm me in the slightest, which no doubt is a mistake, but the NHS is perpetually in crisis as far as the news is concerned, I have no way, without taking a deep, detailed look at things, whether this crisis is as bad as the last crisis, or indeed if it is a crisis.
Just read a very interesting book on risk analysis and why we so often get it wrong. It deals with the biological structures and processes of our brain, the heuristics we use to make decisions rapidly with imperfect data (Bounded Rationality), our personal fear factors, and societal and cultural pressures. In this last category is special mention of the news media and how its stories - because their interests are to sell audience attention not level-headed analysis - tend to be alarmist and hence untrustworthy, particularly as single-source authority.
I've learned the hard way that it is more successful to bet with the head than the heart. My betting and comments of the GE in May (see above) were as objective and quantified as I could manage. I had a massive spreadsheet updated daily with the latest polls. It was all rubbish of course. I was puzzled by the mismatch between the betting and the polls. Hence my plaintive cry of "I simply don't understand it. What am I missing?"
For the record, I am not a Labour supporter though, had I been, I would have voted for Corbyn. I am an active member of the LibDems delivering leaflets etc. However I will be voting for Zac as London Mayor. 1st preference will be LD out of loyalty but my important 2nd prefrence will go to Zac as I think he will make the best mayor.
My current best value bet is Biden for President which I got on at 800/1. Democrats must be better than evens for the presidency, and there must be a greater than 400/1 chance that Hillary pulls out (health, email, somehting else) and Biden picks it up. This is head not heart. Almost certainly won't win but good value I think.
I'm on at 800.0 too! And the Zac vote is greatly appreciated in my head-to-head tussle with Henry G...
“On two occasions in almost a year, as a representative of local people, I have had the chance to put a question directly to him.
“It was a serious question I asked on behalf of undecided voters about the economic and employment consequences of the new EU deal – and all I get is the brush off.
“I asked a serious question about the EU and the Prime Minster makes a sixth form joke.”
I'm sure it's frustrating, and he's entitled to moan, but that's the system, PMs have to answer but they can answer with bollocks, and that wouldn't change under any leader or government, even if they went in intending to not do it.
Which reminds me. Robert can you delete all my pre election posts where I said a hung parliament was free money.
Ta.
While he's at it, any suggestion I was still predicting a Labour majority at the end of January 2015 are total lies, as the (hopefully) lack of evidence will show.
Winter is arriving bloody late this year, feels like a dark, wet and murky autumn still tbh.
I think it's remarkably mild. My alchemilla mollis is still growing as is my salvia super trouper. Some spring bulbs planted in earlier years are already growing strongly and the snowdrops are, as usual, out.
I was walking down Pattison Road yesterday, and the mild weather has totally thrown the trees off. They are all showing spring blossom.
Goodness me. You are very close by.....
I live on the corner of Platts Lane and Rosecroft.
I've learned the hard way that it is more successful to bet with the head than the heart. My betting and comments of the GE in May (see above) were as objective and quantified as I could manage. I had a massive spreadsheet updated daily with the latest polls. It was all rubbish of course. I was puzzled by the mismatch between the betting and the polls. Hence my plaintive cry of "I simply don't understand it. What am I missing?"
Well, it wasn't all rubbish, you would have cleaned up on the SNP. In the end I concluded that the Lab/Con polls were wrong: initially I thought it was an internet effect, but the two methods converged during the campaign.
The polls didn't match up with what had been anticipated in 2014, when there was no real reason to expect the projected trajectory to have changed: if anything the economic news in early 2015 was better than expected. And even more pertinently they didn't match up with what either party was doing: Ed visiting Warwickshire North; Dave visiting Twickenham.
But even then the result was further afield than my seemingly outlandish prediction. This was mostly due to giving the LDs too much credit, in spite of having repeated that Merkel line about the little party always getting smashed about 100 times on here since 2010.
Unfortunately I doubt I'll ever call an election as well again...
I've learned the hard way that it is more successful to bet with the head than the heart.
For the record, I am not a Labour supporter though, had I been, I would have voted for Corbyn. I am an active member of the LibDems delivering leaflets etc. However I will be voting for Zac as London Mayor. 1st preference will be LD out of loyalty but my important 2nd prefrence will go to Zac as I think he will make the best mayor.
My current best value bet is Biden for President which I got on at 800/1. Democrats must be better than evens for the presidency, and there must be a greater than 400/1 chance that Hillary pulls out (health, email, somehting else) and Biden picks it up. This is head not heart. Almost certainly won't win but good value I think.
To be honest, that's true of all betting whether people or greyhounds to some degree.
Like yourself, I'll happily be voting for Caroline as 1st preference - she's an excellent candidate and speaks with great authority on transport and other issues. As for 2nd preference, I've not decided. I'm as uncomfortable with the prospect of Zac Goldsmith as Mayor as I am with Sadiq Khan - both have substantial flaws and neither will make a good Mayor but unfortunately we're stuck with the selling platers the Conservative and Labour parties have ordained we shall have.
I'm less sure about Biden at this later stage but 800/1 certainly represents value of a sort. The GOP race remains a shambles - the unspeakable in pursuit of the unelectable to paraphrase a different comment.
The book claims the Tories recognised the threat Ukip posed to their vote in 2012, with senior figures even accepting the anti-EU party would win a by-election before May 2015.
But the party leadership calculated any attempt to win back the majority of Ukip supporters might alienate more moderate voters.
The book reads: “In 2012 an internal note for the Prime Minister noted: ‘There is nothing we could realistically say to persuade Ukip considerers that David Cameron’s Conservative Party shares (or even sympathises with) their general sense of cultural threat and anger about the pace of change in modern society.’
“Or rather, there was, but only at the cost of driving away other voters ‘upon whom our prospects of electoral victory depend’.”
Don't we have an NHS Winter Crisis every year? It certainly seems that way.
Yes indeed. Such calls no longer alarm me in the slightest, which no doubt is a mistake, but the NHS is perpetually in crisis as far as the news is concerned, I have no way, without taking a deep, detailed look at things, whether this crisis is as bad as the last crisis, or indeed if it is a crisis.
Just read a very interesting book on risk analysis and why we so often get it wrong. It deals with the biological structures and processes of our brain, the heuristics we use to make decisions rapidly with imperfect data (Bounded Rationality), our personal fear factors, and societal and cultural pressures. In this last category is special mention of the news media and how its stories - because their interests are to sell audience attention not level-headed analysis - tend to be alarmist and hence untrustworthy, particularly as single-source authority.
Thanks for the recommendation I have added it to my Christmas book list. How and why humans come to decisions is a fascinating topic. Our assessment of risk alongside our tendency to make very fast judgements (see the book "Blink") make for a very interesting synergy.
Slightly off-topic, I see from the link that in the USA the book retails for $19.64 in hardback but a massive $19.40 for a Kindle version. Something is seriously screwed with US book market I thought when the cost of producing a real hardback is only 24 cents more than an electronic version. Then I looked at the UK Amazon £13.48 for hardback and £12.81 for Kindle - better but still way off kilter (though in the UK we do pay VAT on electronic books but not on real books).
Don't we have an NHS Winter Crisis every year? It certainly seems that way.
Yes indeed. Such calls no longer alarm me in the slightest, which no doubt is a mistake, but the NHS is perpetually in crisis as far as the news is concerned, I have no way, without taking a deep, detailed look at things, whether this crisis is as bad as the last crisis, or indeed if it is a crisis.
Just read a very interesting book on risk analysis and why we so often get it wrong. It deals with the biological structures and processes of our brain, the heuristics we use to make decisions rapidly with imperfect data (Bounded Rationality), our personal fear factors, and societal and cultural pressures. In this last category is special mention of the news media and how its stories - because their interests are to sell audience attention not level-headed analysis - tend to be alarmist and hence untrustworthy, particularly as single-source authority.
Thanks for the recommendation I have added it to Christmas book list. How and why humans come to decisions is a fascinating topic. Our assessment of risk alongside our tendency to make very fast judgements (see the book "Blink"), make for a very interesting synergy.
Slightly off-topic, I see from the link that in the USA the book retails for $19.64 in hardback but a massive $19.40 for a Kindle version. Something is seriously screwed with US book market I thought when the cost of producing a real hardback is only 24 cents more than an electronic version. Then I looked at the UK Amazon £13.48 for hardback and £12.81 for Kindle - better but still way off kilter (though in the UK we do pay VAT on electronic books but not on real books).
In the UK, VAT is charged on ebooks, but not on paper books,
I don;t like or support Trump, but its quite unusual for UK politicians to comment on serious presidential candidates isn;t it? from a diplomacy point of view?
The book claims the Tories recognised the threat Ukip posed to their vote in 2012, with senior figures even accepting the anti-EU party would win a by-election before May 2015.
But the party leadership calculated any attempt to win back the majority of Ukip supporters might alienate more moderate voters.
The book reads: “In 2012 an internal note for the Prime Minister noted: ‘There is nothing we could realistically say to persuade Ukip considerers that David Cameron’s Conservative Party shares (or even sympathises with) their general sense of cultural threat and anger about the pace of change in modern society.’
“Or rather, there was, but only at the cost of driving away other voters ‘upon whom our prospects of electoral victory depend’.”
Don't we have an NHS Winter Crisis every year? It certainly seems that way.
Yes indeed. Such calls no longer alarm me in the slightest, which no doubt is a mistake, but the NHS is perpetually in crisis as far as the news is concerned, I have no way, without taking a deep, detailed look at things, whether this crisis is as bad as the last crisis, or indeed if it is a crisis.
Just read a very interesting book on risk analysis and why we so often get it wrong. It deals with the biological structures and processes of our brain, the heuristics we use to make decisions rapidly with imperfect data (Bounded Rationality), our personal fear factors, and societal and cultural pressures. In this last category is special mention of the news media and how its stories - because their interests are to sell audience attention not level-headed analysis - tend to be alarmist and hence untrustworthy, particularly as single-source authority.
The book claims the Tories recognised the threat Ukip posed to their vote in 2012, with senior figures even accepting the anti-EU party would win a by-election before May 2015.
But the party leadership calculated any attempt to win back the majority of Ukip supporters might alienate more moderate voters.
The book reads: “In 2012 an internal note for the Prime Minister noted: ‘There is nothing we could realistically say to persuade Ukip considerers that David Cameron’s Conservative Party shares (or even sympathises with) their general sense of cultural threat and anger about the pace of change in modern society.’
“Or rather, there was, but only at the cost of driving away other voters ‘upon whom our prospects of electoral victory depend’.”
I've quoted a separate aside re the Tories - the main article is about Dougie calling Spellar a racist for focusing on UKIP.
I don;t like or support Trump, but its quite unusual for UK politicians to comment on serious presidential candidates isn;t it? from a diplomacy point of view?
Yes. But then again it's quite unusual for serious presidential candidates to suggest banning all Muslims from entering their country.
Thanks for the recommendation I have added it to my Christmas book list. How and why humans come to decisions is a fascinating topic. Our assessment of risk alongside our tendency to make very fast judgements (see the book "Blink") make for a very interesting synergy.
Slightly off-topic, I see from the link that in the USA the book retails for $19.64 in hardback but a massive $19.40 for a Kindle version. Something is seriously screwed with US book market I thought when the cost of producing a real hardback is only 24 cents more than an electronic version. Then I looked at the UK Amazon £13.48 for hardback and £12.81 for Kindle - better but still way off kilter (though in the UK we do pay VAT on electronic books but not on real books).
I belong to several email lists for book offers. I think I got this in Kindle version for $1.99. You end up with lots of emails (about 1 a day from each 'club') but I find about 4-5 books a month I want priced anywhere between $0 (yes, free) and $2.99. The result is that I rarely buy at full market price AND have a backlog of reading to catch up on. The downside, the backlog is pretty haphazard.
Re the book itself, another aspect I liked was its analysis of how personal culture (on a two-axis grid of individualist vs communitarian and hierarchist vs egalitarian) ends up driving most of our heuristics and through them our choices on policies (and the data proves this to be a better predictor of positions on individual policies than Left vs Right). Thus there is no longer a one-dimensional political spectrum, but a grid. As a strong Individualist, weak Egalitarian, it explains why I don't fit neatly on the Left Right spectrum.
If only Mr Allen could have encouraged Tony and Gordon to step up and introduce PR when they had the chance.
What flavour of system produced those "results"? How can you take the votes cast under a non-proportional system and munge them into a completely different system and claim that the results are anything other than tripe?
If the last GE had been held under a proportional system, my vote could have been cast differently.
Quite true, people cast their votes differently in different voting systems. Under FPTP I suspect that many vote against rather than for a party, under STV you can cast a vote for who you really want without wasting it.
Quite. I would probably have voted Tory in Edin N&L for instance...
Don't we have an NHS Winter Crisis every year? It certainly seems that way.
Yes indeed. Such calls no longer alarm me in the slightest, which no doubt is a mistake, but the NHS is perpetually in crisis as far as the news is concerned, I have no way, without taking a deep, detailed look at things, whether this crisis is as bad as the last crisis, or indeed if it is a crisis.
Yes and its a side effect of trying to run the NHS at 100% capacity all the time to get that efficiency so we have minimal beds for normal usage which in crisis time causes issues and this applies across the service. The trouble is the bean counters don't like excess capacity which why there was lots of fuss in the 80s/90s when the bed count got dramatically cut.
Here’s my advice to the current Labour leadership, and its supporters (including those in the media):
Stop. Moaning. About. The. Media.
Most politicians reach the stage of paranoia about the media at the end of their time as leader - as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown was obsessed by the press’s hostility to him, and he had more reason to be so than Corbyn – but for Corbyn and his followers, it is a starting point, and an article of faith. It is a big problem for them.
... Labour’s current leaders want to believe that the press don’t matter anymore (they are fond of remarking that social media is making newspapers irrelevant), and also that the only reason they’re behind in the polls is because of the press. The contradiction grows out of an evasion. Corbynites love to talk about “democratic process” but they don’t grasp the first principle of democracy, which is to respect the intelligence of the masses.
IN is 1.61 or 8/13 on betfair, considering we're more or less unanimous about the result that has to a be great price
Events.
What event could there possibly be? The EU continues to plumb new depths of awfulness with no sign yet of hitting the bottom of the barrel. I'm afraid today's bovine public will simply be herded into voting 'yes' regardless of events.
@HTScotPol: Fancy that. @JohnSwinney announces Scottish income tax in 2016-17 will match that in UK
Swinney is agreeing GO is a genius and he cannot improve upon his income tax rates.
Hmm....The Scottish Rate Of Income Tax (SRIT) is an economic stinker but a political wonder. All UK income tax rates (basic, standard, high) are reduced in Scotland by 10%. The Scottish finance minister then has the right to nominate ONE AND ONLY ONE alternative rate to replace the lost 10%. He may not be more or less progressive by band - it's 'choose one number'. So...if he chose 9% then Scotland would get a tax cut (hooray) but also a significant spending cut (boo). If he chose 11% Scotland would pay more tax (boo) but get more spending (hooray). Either way he would be choosing deliberately to make some better off and some worse off in Scotland vs the rest of the UK. That will inevitably cause a big backlash whatever he chose. He can't win! Osborne is a cunning so and so / political genius - take your pick. He has all but forced Scotland to undermine the case for its own financial independence.
On the other hand it is a relatively simple way to devolve (and we are talking about devolution since as it happens we are one big united kingdom still) tax raising powers which everyone can understand.
No, it's monumentally silly. The options for Scotland are 20/40/45, 19/39/44 (etc) or 21/41/46 (etc). Only in the devolution settlement are the top and bottom rates of tax linked like that...
No - its simple. Central government sets the broad tax parameter. And collects the taxes. Does devolved Scotland have its own inland revenue service? Do we want to pay for that? Do they? Is there a big deal in any of this? Or is it another manifestation of the usual PB wishful thinking?
No - its simple. Central government sets the broad tax parameter. And collects the taxes. Does devolved Scotland have its own inland revenue service? Do we want to pay for that? Do they? Is there a big deal in any of this? Or is it another manifestation of the usual PB wishful thinking?
AFAIK Scotland has to be a service charge to the HMRC for being able to distinguish "Scottish" income tax under the powers just gone live.
@HTScotPol: Fancy that. @JohnSwinney announces Scottish income tax in 2016-17 will match that in UK
Swinney is agreeing GO is a genius and he cannot improve upon his income tax rates.
Hmm....The Scottish Rate Of Income Tax (SRIT) is an economic stinker but a political wonder. All UK income tax rates (basic, standard, high) are reduced in Scotland by 10%. The Scottish finance minister then has the right to nominate ONE AND ONLY ONE alternative rate to replace the lost 10%. He may not be more or less progressive by band - it's 'choose one number'. So...if he chose 9% then Scotland would get a tax cut (hooray) but also a significant spending cut (boo). If he chose 11% Scotland would pay more tax (boo) but get more spending (hooray). Either way he would be choosing deliberately to make some better off and some worse off in Scotland vs the rest of the UK. That will inevitably cause a big backlash whatever he chose. He can't win! Osborne is a cunning so and so / political genius - take your pick. He has all but forced Scotland to undermine the case for its own financial independence.
On the other hand it is a relatively simple way to devolve (and we are talking about devolution since as it happens we are one big united kingdom still) tax raising powers which everyone can understand.
No, it's monumentally silly. The options for Scotland are 20/40/45, 19/39/44 (etc) or 21/41/46 (etc). Only in the devolution settlement are the top and bottom rates of tax linked like that...
No - its simple. Central government sets the broad tax parameter. And collects the taxes. Does devolved Scotland have its own inland revenue service? Do we want to pay for that? Do they? Is there a big deal in any of this? Or is it another manifestation of the usual PB wishful thinking?
I don't understand.
If Scotland chose 19/39/44, we'd still need to identify taxpayers in Scotland and apply a differential rate. The overhead for HMRC if anything is less for 20/40/50 (which is probably most likely) than 19/39/44 as they will be self assessors.
But that might distract from my point. Scotland has not been given any realistic tax-varying powers at all (up till 2017/18) what it has been given has only been given in the safe knowledge it is quite impossible ever to make use of. It is a fiction and that's not good, other than politically, for anyone.
Either we think that tax-varying is discordant with a United Kingdom, in which case it can be abolished, or consistent with a United Kingdom and they should be able to have say 20/40/50.
IN is 1.61 or 8/13 on betfair, considering we're more or less unanimous about the result that has to a be great price
Events.
What event could there possibly be? The EU continues to plumb new depths of awfulness with no sign yet of hitting the bottom of the barrel. I'm afraid today's bovine public will simply be herded into voting 'yes' regardless of events.
Is that a serious comment?
Let's pretend there is no "renegotiation" for a moment. Here are some top of the head examples of events that would have an impact.
Events that would favour "Out": - The Eurozone slipping back into recession - A worsening of the refugee crisis
Events that would favour "In": - Eurozone GDP growth surpassing the UK - The UK slipping into recession - The refugee crisis drifting off the headlines - A (real) war in the Ukraine
IN is 1.61 or 8/13 on betfair, considering we're more or less unanimous about the result that has to a be great price
Events.
Don't get me wrong I'll be doing my bit for OUT I'm just surprised at the price.
I've been selling both when the price is "right". I'm currently selling "In", and will do so - in small size - at these levels.
I'd be happier if I knew when the market would conclude...
There are 27 other members of the EU. They all have to agree to any changes. They all have issues that are important to their own electorates. (And the thing that all politicians care about most is re-elections).
I can't see any agreement unless it looks like the UK will actually leave (taking its valuable budget contributions with it). Therefore, I would suggest it will take the actual threat from Cameron to lead the "Leave" campaign in mid 2017 to finalise Heads of Terms.
@HTScotPol: Fancy that. @JohnSwinney announces Scottish income tax in 2016-17 will match that in UK
Swinney is agreeing GO is a genius and he cannot improve upon his income tax rates.
Hmm....The Scottish Rate Of Income Tax (SRIT) is an economic stinker but a political wonder. All UK income tax ratey cause a big backlash whatever he chose. He can't win! Osborne is a cunning so and so / political genius - take your pick. He has all but forced Scotland to undermine the case for its own financial independence.
On the other hand it is a relatively simple way to devolve (and we are talking about devolution since as it happens we are one big united kingdom still) tax raising powers which everyone can understand.
No, it's monumentally silly. The options for Scotland are 20/40/45, 19/39/44 (etc) or 21/41/46 (etc). Only in the devolution settlement are the top and bottom rates of tax linked like that...
No - its simple. Central government sets the broad tax parameter. And collects the taxes. Does devolved Scotland have its own inland revenue service? Do we want to pay for that? Do they? Is there a big deal in any of this? Or is it another manifestation of the usual PB wishful thinking?
I don't understand.
If Scotland chose 19/39/44, we'd still need to identify taxpayers in Scotland and apply a differential rate. The overhead for HMRC if anything is less for 20/40/50 (which is probably most likely) than 19/39/44 as they will be self assessors.
But that might distract from my point. Scotland has not been given any realistic tax-varying powers at all (up till 2017/18) what it has been given has only been given in the safe knowledge it is quite impossible ever to make use of. It is a fiction and that's not good, other than politically, for anyone.
Either we think that tax-varying is discordant with a United Kingdom, in which case it can be abolished, or consistent with a United Kingdom and they should be able to have say 20/40/50.
The SNP have followed Labour down the hole of "sending a message rather than raising revenue" on tax rates - so why didn't they raise the top limit to 50% for "social justice" ?
IN is 1.61 or 8/13 on betfair, considering we're more or less unanimous about the result that has to a be great price
Events.
What event could there possibly be? The EU continues to plumb new depths of awfulness with no sign yet of hitting the bottom of the barrel. I'm afraid today's bovine public will simply be herded into voting 'yes' regardless of events.
Is that a serious comment?
Let's pretend there is no "renegotiation" for a moment. Here are some top of the head examples of events that would have an impact.
Events that would favour "Out": - The Eurozone slipping back into recession - A worsening of the refugee crisis
Events that would favour "In": - Eurozone GDP growth surpassing the UK - The UK slipping into recession - The refugee crisis drifting off the headlines - A (real) war in the Ukraine
Deadly serious.
Eurozone in recession - no impact whatever that I could see. Refugee crisis gets worse - proof that we need more Europe to protect us from the scary people - Cameron has already tried the national security angle.
There is no attribute that can't be spun the opposite way, as a marketer that's lesson 1.
For the British public in its current state to ignore the advice of the institutions it (disastrously) depends upon to look after its health, wellbeing, and order its lives, and go forth into a cold and dangerous looking new world would take a miracle.
@HTScotPol: Fancy that. @JohnSwinney announces Scottish income tax in 2016-17 will match that in UK
Swinney is agreeing GO is a genius and he cannot improve upon his income tax rates.
Hmm....The Scottish Rate Of Income Tax (SRIT) is an economic stinker but a political wonder. All UK income tax ratey cause a big backlash whatever he chose. He can't win! Osborne is a cunning so and so / political genius - take your pick. He has all but forced Scotland to undermine the case for its own financial independence.
On the other hand it is a relatively simple way to devolve (and we are talking about devolution since as it happens we are one big united kingdom still) tax raising powers which everyone can understand.
No, it's monumentally silly. The options for Scotland are 20/40/45, 19/39/44 (etc) or 21/41/46 (etc). Only in the devolution settlement are the top and bottom rates of tax linked like that...
No - its simple. Central government sets the broad tax parameter. And collects the taxes. Does devolved Scotland have its own inland revenue service? Do we want to pay for that? Do they? Is there a big deal in any of this? Or is it another manifestation of the usual PB wishful thinking?
I don't understand.
If Scotland chose 19/39/44, we'd still need to identify taxpayers in Scotland and apply a differential rate. The overhead for HMRC if anything is less for 20/40/50 (which is probably most likely) than 19/39/44 as they will be self assessors.
But that might distract from my point. Scotland has not been given any realistic tax-varying powers at all (up till 2017/18) what it has been given has only been given in the safe knowledge it is quite impossible ever to make use of. It is a fiction and that's not good, other than politically, for anyone.
Either we think that tax-varying is discordant with a United Kingdom, in which case it can be abolished, or consistent with a United Kingdom and they should be able to have say 20/40/50.
The SNP have followed Labour down the hole of "sending a message rather than raising revenue" on tax rates - so why didn't they raise the top limit to 50% for "social justice" ?
They'd need to raise the basic rate to 25% if they did that.
IN is 1.61 or 8/13 on betfair, considering we're more or less unanimous about the result that has to a be great price
Events.
What event could there possibly be? The EU continues to plumb new depths of awfulness with no sign yet of hitting the bottom of the barrel. I'm afraid today's bovine public will simply be herded into voting 'yes' regardless of events.
Is that a serious comment?
Let's pretend there is no "renegotiation" for a moment. Here are some top of the head examples of events that would have an impact.
Events that would favour "Out": - The Eurozone slipping back into recession - A worsening of the refugee crisis
Events that would favour "In": - Eurozone GDP growth surpassing the UK - The UK slipping into recession - The refugee crisis drifting off the headlines - A (real) war in the Ukraine
Deadly serious.
Eurozone in recession - no impact whatever that I could see. Refugee crisis gets worse - proof that we need more Europe to protect us from the scary people - Cameron has already tried the national security angle.
There is no attribute that can't be spun the opposite way, as a marketer that's lesson 1.
For the British public in its current state to ignore the advice of the institutions it (disastrously) depends upon to look after its health, wellbeing, and order its lives, and go forth into a cold and dangerous looking new world would take a miracle.
The proportion of "Outs" in opinion polls tracks the relative health of the UK and European economies. When they are doing really badly, we want to leave. When they are doing relatively well we want to stay.
I notice Cameron and May are dissin' Trump's posse today.
Bit embarrassing if he does win...
If he does win, Cameron will need to rush his retirement before Trump's inauguration in Jan.2017 or else the anglo-american alliance will be terminated, as Trump never forgets an insult. Cameron has put a large bet against Trump becoming president, his job.
@HTScotPol: Fancy that. @JohnSwinney announces Scottish income tax in 2016-17 will match that in UK
Swinney is agreeing GO is a genius and he cannot improve upon his income tax rates.
Hmm....The Scottish Rate Of Income Tax (SRIT) is an economic stinker but a political wonder. All UK income tax ratey cause a big backlash whatever he chose. He can't win! Osborne is a cunning so and so / political genius - take your pick. He has all but forced Scotland to undermine the case for its own financial independence.
On the other hand it is a relatively simple way to devolve (and we are talking about devolution since as it happens we are one big united kingdom still) tax raising powers which everyone can understand.
No, it's monumentally silly. The options for Scotland are 20/40/45, 19/39/44 (etc) or 21/41/46 (etc). Only in the devolution settlement are the top and bottom rates of tax linked like that...
No - its simple. Central government sets the broad tax parameter. And collects the taxes. Does devolved Scotland have its own inland revenue service? Do we want to pay for that? Do they? Is there a big deal in any of this? Or is it another manifestation of the usual PB wishful thinking?
I don't understand.
If Scotland chose 19/39/44, we'd still need to identify taxpayers in Scotland and apply a differential rate. The overhead for HMRC if anything is less for 20/40/50 (which is probably most likely) than 19/39/44 as they will be self assessors.
But that might distract from my point. Scotland has not been given any realistic tax-varying powers at all (up till 2017/18) what it has been given has only been given in the safe knowledge it is quite impossible ever to make use of. It is a fiction and that's not good, other than politically, for anyone.
Either we think that tax-varying is discordant with a United Kingdom, in which case it can be abolished, or consistent with a United Kingdom and they should be able to have say 20/40/50.
The SNP have followed Labour down the hole of "sending a message rather than raising revenue" on tax rates - so why didn't they raise the top limit to 50% for "social justice" ?
Because they'd have to raise the basic rate to 25% at the same time under the current rules. Which clearly doesn't make any sense.
If he does win, Cameron will need to rush his retirement before Trump's inauguration in Jan.2017 or else the anglo-american alliance will be terminated, as Trump never forgets an insult. Cameron has but a large bet against Trump becoming president, his job.
If Trump wins that would be amongst the least of his and our worries. Trump and the Republicans mirroring Labour and Corbyn is a terrifying thought.
I notice Cameron and May are dissin' Trump's posse today.
Bit embarrassing if he does win...
If he does win, Cameron will need to rush his retirement before Trump's inauguration in Jan.2017 or else the anglo-american alliance will be terminated, as Trump never forgets an insult. Cameron has put a large bet against Trump becoming president, his job.
I've be brilliant at predicting the Republican nominee no hopers - warning otherwise rational posters that Paul and Walker had zero chance and they should save their money. But I have no idea what's going to happen now.
If he does win, Cameron will need to rush his retirement before Trump's inauguration in Jan.2017 or else the anglo-american alliance will be terminated, as Trump never forgets an insult. Cameron has but a large bet against Trump becoming president, his job.
If Trump wins that would be amongst the least of his and our worries. Trump and the Republicans mirroring Labour and Corbyn is a terrifying thought.
It might scare you but it wouldn't worry me in the slightest. The days when a US president had much impact on domestic or even political life in the UK are long past. Watching American politics is a bit like watching an old friend slide into dementia - it's very sad but life goes on though with maybe a few minor changes.
@jamesmaxwell86: SNP committed to reintroducing 50p top rate during the indyref & then again during the GE. Now, given the chance, they've decided not to.
@jamesmaxwell86: SNP committed to reintroducing 50p top rate during the indyref & then again during the GE. Now, given the chance, they've decided not to.
I don;t like or support Trump, but its quite unusual for UK politicians to comment on serious presidential candidates isn;t it? from a diplomacy point of view?
IN is 1.61 or 8/13 on betfair, considering we're more or less unanimous about the result that has to a be great price
Events.
What event could there possibly be? The EU continues to plumb new depths of awfulness with no sign yet of hitting the bottom of the barrel. I'm afraid today's bovine public will simply be herded into voting 'yes' regardless of events.
Is that a serious comment?
Let's pretend there is no "renegotiation" for a moment. Here are some top of the head examples of events that would have an impact.
Events that would favour "Out": - The Eurozone slipping back into recession - A worsening of the refugee crisis
Events that would favour "In": - Eurozone GDP growth surpassing the UK - The UK slipping into recession - The refugee crisis drifting off the headlines - A (real) war in the Ukraine
Deadly serious.
Eurozone in recession - no impact whatever that I could see. Refugee crisis gets worse - proof that we need more Europe to protect us from the scary people - Cameron has already tried the national security angle.
There is no attribute that can't be spun the opposite way, as a marketer that's lesson 1.
For the British public in its current state to ignore the advice of the institutions it (disastrously) depends upon to look after its health, wellbeing, and order its lives, and go forth into a cold and dangerous looking new world would take a miracle.
The proportion of "Outs" in opinion polls tracks the relative health of the UK and European economies. When they are doing really badly, we want to leave. When they are doing relatively well we want to stay.
I can produce a chart for you if you want.
I was tempted to say, "Yes, please do" but then I thought of the amount of work that it would take to produce a such a chart, at least one that would be meaningful and I couldn't ask you to spend so much of your time, especially when at the end of the day you would only be met with cries of "correlation is not causation".
In any event I do hope that the relative strength of economies is not the sole driver between wishing to stay in and to leave. Aside from all other factors the very idea that there are two economies to compare, ours and the "European" suggests that we don't belong anyway.
IN is 1.61 or 8/13 on betfair, considering we're more or less unanimous about the result that has to a be great price
Events.
What event could there possibly be? The EU continues to plumb new depths of awfulness with no sign yet of hitting the bottom of the barrel. I'm afraid today's bovine public will simply be herded into voting 'yes' regardless of events.
Is that a serious comment?
Let's pretend there is no "renegotiation" for a moment. Here are some top of the head examples of events that would have an impact.
Events that would favour "Out": - The Eurozone slipping back into recession - A worsening of the refugee crisis
Events that would favour "In": - Eurozone GDP growth surpassing the UK - The UK slipping into recession - The refugee crisis drifting off the headlines - A (real) war in the Ukraine
Deadly serious.
Eurozone in recession - no impact whatever that I could see. Refugee crisis gets worse - proof that we need more Europe to protect us from the scary people - Cameron has already tried the national security angle.
There is no attribute that can't be spun the opposite way, as a marketer that's lesson 1.
For the British public in its current state to ignore the advice of the institutions it (disastrously) depends upon to look after its health, wellbeing, and order its lives, and go forth into a cold and dangerous looking new world would take a miracle.
The proportion of "Outs" in opinion polls tracks the relative health of the UK and European economies. When they are doing really badly, we want to leave. When they are doing relatively well we want to stay.
I can produce a chart for you if you want.
I was tempted to say, "Yes, please do" but then I thought of the amount of work that it would take to produce a such a chart, at least one that would be meaningful and I couldn't ask you to spend so much of your time, especially when at the end of the day you would only be met with cries of "correlation is not causation".
In any event I do hope that the relative strength of economies is not the sole driver between wishing to stay in and to leave. Aside from all other factors the very idea that there are two economies to compare, ours and the "European" suggests that we don't belong anyway.
The same trend is evident for Catalonian independence too.
Most people care about feeding their families. All else is secondary.
I notice Cameron and May are dissin' Trump's posse today.
Bit embarrassing if he does win...
If he does win, Cameron will need to rush his retirement before Trump's inauguration in Jan.2017 or else the anglo-american alliance will be terminated, as Trump never forgets an insult. Cameron has put a large bet against Trump becoming president, his job.
Speedy, how would you put the %'age changes of each GOP candidate?
Well last time I said Trump 50, Carson 50 in October, now I think it's Trump 50, Cruz 50. Basically Trump has a 50/50 chance, but his main challenger also has a 50/50 chance, as long as his main challenger is a conservative not an establishment-moderate, if it's an establishment-moderate then its 100% Trump. Of course the main challenger can change over time, like flavours of the month, so I'll wait a month to see if Cruz is still there, but basically conservatives are running out of options if they don't like Cruz anymore. If Cruz falls off like Carson we may see a resurgence of Carson or even Paul becoming the flavour of the month during Iowa, presently I think it's a 1 in 3 chance that Cruz falls off, and a 1 in 3 that Paul gets his support instead of Carson.
Establishment candidates like Rubio, Bush, Christie, Kasich, Fiorina have no chance, simply because they are too moderate and perceived as too corrupt, not to mention most of them are incompetent at their job. Also the establishment-moderate vote is always around 25% and it's split because all of them suck as candidates as much as the non-establishments (Gingrich, Perry, Santorum ect) in 2012 (it's a reverse mirror picture of the 2012 primaries). They are the Liz Kendall's of the republican party (Liz Kendall was also the favourite in the betting markets once, despite my warnings that she may end up dead last)
So in conclusion, for now their chances are: Trump 50 Cruz 33 Carson 11 Paul 5 Rest 1
If he does win, Cameron will need to rush his retirement before Trump's inauguration in Jan.2017 or else the anglo-american alliance will be terminated, as Trump never forgets an insult. Cameron has but a large bet against Trump becoming president, his job.
If Trump wins that would be amongst the least of his and our worries. Trump and the Republicans mirroring Labour and Corbyn is a terrifying thought.
It might scare you but it wouldn't worry me in the slightest. The days when a US president had much impact on domestic or even political life in the UK are long past. Watching American politics is a bit like watching an old friend slide into dementia - it's very sad but life goes on though with maybe a few minor changes.
I doubt very much that he could be as bad as Bush Junior.
Credit where it's due well done the govt for giving the go ahead for fracking in national parks
I don't think they have. They have given consent to extract stuff from under the National Parks as long as the actual extraction site is outside of the parks' boundaries. Not quite the same thing at all. Sensible and welcome nonetheless.
Mind you, how going ahead with fracking squares with what Amber Rudd was saying Parliament the other day about the new deal on climate change is anyone's guess. Under the Coalition Cameron and Co could get away with not having a coherent energy policy because they could blame the Lib Dems. What is their excuse now?
The same trend is evident for Catalonian independence too.
Most people care about feeding their families. All else is secondary.
I am less than convinced that mass starvation is on the cards whether we stay or leave and I very much doubt anyone thinks of the ability to feed their families as a consideration. Perhaps you are using a metaphor.
I notice Cameron and May are dissin' Trump's posse today.
Bit embarrassing if he does win...
If he does win, Cameron will need to rush his retirement before Trump's inauguration in Jan.2017 or else the anglo-american alliance will be terminated, as Trump never forgets an insult. Cameron has put a large bet against Trump becoming president, his job.
Speedy, how would you put the %'age changes of each GOP candidate?
Well last time I said Trump 50, Carson 50 in October, now I think it's Trump 50, Cruz 50. Basically Trump has a 50/50 chance, but his main challenger also has a 50/50 chance, as long as his main challenger is a conservative not an establishment-moderate, if it's an establishment-moderate then its 100% Trump. Of course the main challenger can change over time, like flavours of the month, so I'll wait a month to see if Cruz is still there, but basically conservatives are running out of options if they don't like Cruz anymore. If Cruz falls off like Carson we may see a resurgence of Carson or even Paul becoming the flavour of the month during Iowa, presently I think it's a 1 in 3 chance that Cruz falls off, and a 1 in 3 that Paul gets his support instead of Carson.
Establishment candidates like Rubio, Bush, Christie, Kasich, Fiorina have no chance, simply because they are too moderate and perceived as too corrupt, not to mention most of them are incompetent at their job. Also the establishment-moderate vote is always around 25% and it's split because all of them suck as candidates as much as the non-establishments (Gingrich, Perry, Santorum ect) in 2012 (it's a reverse mirror picture of the 2012 primaries). They are the Liz Kendall's of the republican party (Liz Kendall was also the favourite in the betting markets once, despite my warnings that she may end up dead last)
So in conclusion, for now their chances are: Trump 50 Cruz 33 Carson 11 Paul 5 Rest 1
So in conclusion, for now their chances are: Trump 50 Cruz 33 Carson 11 Paul 5 Rest 1
I'll take as much 100/1 Rubio as you're offering.
You're no fun.
Speedy's analysis, whilst right to note the similarities between Trump & Corbyn, neglects the fact that the electorate is vastly wider (not just bigger) in American primaries than in Labour's system.
Comments
The oil price continuing to be in the toilet undermines Sindy far more than this does.
Why bring in crass allusions to nazis? How clever is that? I'll tell you how clever it is - its thick.
Its doubly thick indeed infantile when the main criticism of Merkle is that she is encouraging immigration and integration - ie the opposite of nazi philosophy.
Boo hoo.
They would surely find it more perverse if we were at the top of the food chain and were not taking advantage of the healthy proteins, vitamins, minerals, and fats that meat eating affords. None of the famously long lived cultures of the world have been vegetarian.
“This is classic David Cameron.
“On two occasions in almost a year, as a representative of local people, I have had the chance to put a question directly to him.
“It was a serious question I asked on behalf of undecided voters about the economic and employment consequences of the new EU deal – and all I get is the brush off.
“I asked a serious question about the EU and the Prime Minster makes a sixth form joke.”
Though Andrew Hawkins doubted that poll.
Which amused me no end.
I think none of us could quite believe that poll. But the Southwest was odd - I have no idea why Truro and Falmouth was 1-4 Tories for ages, bearing in mind it needed a swing TO the Lib Dems for it to go.
"Minority Ethnique" sounds French
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/politico-caucus-gop-debate-rubio-wins-vegas-216841
Seems clear whom the Establishment has picked. As noted in the article, Cruz has his track clear now, whereas Rubio is still contending with Bush and Christie in his. Once the latter clears, this becomes an almighty three-way with Trump.
Still living in hope that Trump's poll numbers reflect more non-primary voters, but alas anger is one of the strongest motivators, and they are angry.
We're at the top of the food chain whether or not we eat meat. I mean, what natural predators do humans have nowadays?
For the record, I am not a Labour supporter though, had I been, I would have voted for Corbyn. I am an active member of the LibDems delivering leaflets etc. However I will be voting for Zac as London Mayor. 1st preference will be LD out of loyalty but my important 2nd prefrence will go to Zac as I think he will make the best mayor.
My current best value bet is Biden for President which I got on at 800/1. Democrats must be better than evens for the presidency, and there must be a greater than 400/1 chance that Hillary pulls out (health, email, somehting else) and Biden picks it up. This is head not heart. Almost certainly won't win but good value I think.
I'll hold onto -ve Rubio, but I'll reback if the weather looks like it is swinging his way. Jeb Bush looks done... the problem for Rubio is he will hang round like a bad smell for too long picking up enough of his voters to stop him breaking out methinks.
Streptococcus pyogenes?
Well, they omitted to show that on the just-concluded BBC series "The Hunt"
From 2014 onwards Labour's performance in any real election was uniformly below its poll score. Sometimes well below.
Thus, the scepticism many tories had for the accuracy of polls was not based on sentiment. It was based on hard evidence.
Corbyn I generally find no real fault with presentationally (notwithstanding what are apparently terrible suits on occasion, but I've not seen one so bad it would diminish the entire effect) - he's got a quite soothing, authoritative voice and understated delivery which sometimes works well, and other times means he missed the opportunity to land a real blow, so his default performance level is probably best described as workmanlike, but unexceptional.
Don't moan about the media, Labour, it makes you look like losers, says @mrianleslie: https://t.co/jUPnoGYSaq https://t.co/6L6u0qfAj2
Under FPTP I suspect that many vote against rather than for a party, under STV you can cast a vote for who you really want without wasting it.
Well worth a read - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003O86EZK/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
Outstanding writing from Nick Cohen.
The polls didn't match up with what had been anticipated in 2014, when there was no real reason to expect the projected trajectory to have changed: if anything the economic news in early 2015 was better than expected. And even more pertinently they didn't match up with what either party was doing: Ed visiting Warwickshire North; Dave visiting Twickenham.
But even then the result was further afield than my seemingly outlandish prediction. This was mostly due to giving the LDs too much credit, in spite of having repeated that Merkel line about the little party always getting smashed about 100 times on here since 2010.
Unfortunately I doubt I'll ever call an election as well again...
Bit embarrassing if he does win...
Like yourself, I'll happily be voting for Caroline as 1st preference - she's an excellent candidate and speaks with great authority on transport and other issues. As for 2nd preference, I've not decided. I'm as uncomfortable with the prospect of Zac Goldsmith as Mayor as I am with Sadiq Khan - both have substantial flaws and neither will make a good Mayor but unfortunately we're stuck with the selling platers the Conservative and Labour parties have ordained we shall have.
I'm less sure about Biden at this later stage but 800/1 certainly represents value of a sort. The GOP race remains a shambles - the unspeakable in pursuit of the unelectable to paraphrase a different comment.
Lots to take in here:
The book claims the Tories recognised the threat Ukip posed to their vote in 2012, with senior figures even accepting the anti-EU party would win a by-election before May 2015.
But the party leadership calculated any attempt to win back the majority of Ukip supporters might alienate more moderate voters.
The book reads: “In 2012 an internal note for the Prime Minister noted: ‘There is nothing we could realistically say to persuade Ukip considerers that David Cameron’s Conservative Party shares (or even sympathises with) their general sense of cultural threat and anger about the pace of change in modern society.’
“Or rather, there was, but only at the cost of driving away other voters ‘upon whom our prospects of electoral victory depend’.”
Slightly off-topic, I see from the link that in the USA the book retails for $19.64 in hardback but a massive $19.40 for a Kindle version. Something is seriously screwed with US book market I thought when the cost of producing a real hardback is only 24 cents more than an electronic version. Then I looked at the UK Amazon £13.48 for hardback and £12.81 for Kindle - better but still way off kilter (though in the UK we do pay VAT on electronic books but not on real books).
That's a huge chunk of the difference,
I don;t like or support Trump, but its quite unusual for UK politicians to comment on serious presidential candidates isn;t it? from a diplomacy point of view?
Personally after my GE mess I can see I cannot trust my gut to measure odds, let alone true risks, so from now on its reading tea leaves or nothing.
Re the book itself, another aspect I liked was its analysis of how personal culture (on a two-axis grid of individualist vs communitarian and hierarchist vs egalitarian) ends up driving most of our heuristics and through them our choices on policies (and the data proves this to be a better predictor of positions on individual policies than Left vs Right). Thus there is no longer a one-dimensional political spectrum, but a grid. As a strong Individualist, weak Egalitarian, it explains why I don't fit neatly on the Left Right spectrum.
Does devolved Scotland have its own inland revenue service? Do we want to pay for that? Do they?
Is there a big deal in any of this? Or is it another manifestation of the usual PB wishful thinking?
If Scotland chose 19/39/44, we'd still need to identify taxpayers in Scotland and apply a differential rate. The overhead for HMRC if anything is less for 20/40/50 (which is probably most likely) than 19/39/44 as they will be self assessors.
But that might distract from my point. Scotland has not been given any realistic tax-varying powers at all (up till 2017/18) what it has been given has only been given in the safe knowledge it is quite impossible ever to make use of. It is a fiction and that's not good, other than politically, for anyone.
Either we think that tax-varying is discordant with a United Kingdom, in which case it can be abolished, or consistent with a United Kingdom and they should be able to have say 20/40/50.
Let's pretend there is no "renegotiation" for a moment. Here are some top of the head examples of events that would have an impact.
Events that would favour "Out":
- The Eurozone slipping back into recession
- A worsening of the refugee crisis
Events that would favour "In":
- Eurozone GDP growth surpassing the UK
- The UK slipping into recession
- The refugee crisis drifting off the headlines
- A (real) war in the Ukraine
Although, ultimately, I'm not sure the hard-core leavers really care - they're content being the virtuous, victimised underdogs.
Even if they got what they want, they wouldn't be happy.
I can't see any agreement unless it looks like the UK will actually leave (taking its valuable budget contributions with it). Therefore, I would suggest it will take the actual threat from Cameron to lead the "Leave" campaign in mid 2017 to finalise Heads of Terms.
Eurozone in recession - no impact whatever that I could see.
Refugee crisis gets worse - proof that we need more Europe to protect us from the scary people - Cameron has already tried the national security angle.
There is no attribute that can't be spun the opposite way, as a marketer that's lesson 1.
For the British public in its current state to ignore the advice of the institutions it (disastrously) depends upon to look after its health, wellbeing, and order its lives, and go forth into a cold and dangerous looking new world would take a miracle.
I can produce a chart for you if you want.
Cameron has put a large bet against Trump becoming president, his job.
As for the nomination:
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/677134861753274368
A C-note is a 100$ bill.
Also, the journalist class is staring to doubt their favourite after his last nights poor debate performance:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/16/was-marco-rubio-overrated-all-along.html?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8169382/WikiLeaks-Barack-Obama-regarded-David-Cameron-as-lightweight.html
In any event I do hope that the relative strength of economies is not the sole driver between wishing to stay in and to leave. Aside from all other factors the very idea that there are two economies to compare, ours and the "European" suggests that we don't belong anyway.
Most people care about feeding their families. All else is secondary.
Basically Trump has a 50/50 chance, but his main challenger also has a 50/50 chance, as long as his main challenger is a conservative not an establishment-moderate, if it's an establishment-moderate then its 100% Trump.
Of course the main challenger can change over time, like flavours of the month, so I'll wait a month to see if Cruz is still there, but basically conservatives are running out of options if they don't like Cruz anymore. If Cruz falls off like Carson we may see a resurgence of Carson or even Paul becoming the flavour of the month during Iowa, presently I think it's a 1 in 3 chance that Cruz falls off, and a 1 in 3 that Paul gets his support instead of Carson.
Establishment candidates like Rubio, Bush, Christie, Kasich, Fiorina have no chance, simply because they are too moderate and perceived as too corrupt, not to mention most of them are incompetent at their job.
Also the establishment-moderate vote is always around 25% and it's split because all of them suck as candidates as much as the non-establishments (Gingrich, Perry, Santorum ect) in 2012 (it's a reverse mirror picture of the 2012 primaries).
They are the Liz Kendall's of the republican party (Liz Kendall was also the favourite in the betting markets once, despite my warnings that she may end up dead last)
So in conclusion, for now their chances are:
Trump 50
Cruz 33
Carson 11
Paul 5
Rest 1
Mind you, how going ahead with fracking squares with what Amber Rudd was saying Parliament the other day about the new deal on climate change is anyone's guess. Under the Coalition Cameron and Co could get away with not having a coherent energy policy because they could blame the Lib Dems. What is their excuse now?
Are there any odds you'd back Rubio at?
Seriously though, what's your estimation of rubio's chances?