I didn't see it myself but today's Q&A session was not that acrimonious apparently.
Carswell on Cameron:
“Because Cameron’s not serious. It’s a smoke-and-mirrors referendum. His advisers told me the plan; it’s to work out from focus groups and pollsters what it would take to get the soft ‘outers’ and the undecideds to stay in, to offer them that, and once that hurdle is cleared to stick with the status quo.”
I may be able to shed a little bit of light on the "objective justification" brouhaha. Just a little.
It's a phrase much used in the concept of EU discrimination legislation (in, for example, employment law to justify age discrimination or indirect sex discrimination) and seems to be used by analogy here. In order to demonstrate an objective justification, one must first show a legitimate aim. The legitimate aim cannot normally be related to cost alone and cannot itself be discriminatory. So the fact that a particular course of action would otherwise be very expensive would not by itself permit discrimination.
Even if you can show a legitimate aim, you need also to show that the means being adopted are proportionate. So if the impact on the person being discriminated against is disproportionate, it is unlawful. This is usually treated quite stringently against the person seeking to discriminate also.
Set against that, where two people are not in relevantly the same position, they can be treated differently and that isn't discrimination at all. Since most differences between Eurozone countries and non-Eurozone countries would come in that category, I'm not at all sure what the provision is trying to deal with.
It is one of the bits of what's been announced that has more significance than has generally been appreciated, but the significance remains murky. Its significance has no doubt been considered at length behind closed doors, but more light would be welcome.
That's very interesting. I know it's not your legal specialism, but can you unpack any further the phrase "not in relevantly the same position"? Presumably, in employment law, that is defined fairly precisely.
Before we dive headlong into the phenomenological implications of "relevantly the same position", may I politely suggest that it may be a misspelling of the word "relatively"?
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
What do you make of the GOP Nom odds?
I'm not sure Rubio should be making up 58% of the market, especially checking Iowa/NH correlation.
Yeah. 58% looks high to me. The odds seem to have the assumption of marcomentum built in - and we just don't have any evidence of that yet.
You'd have to be pretty brave to back @ 1.75
Do you think the Donald/Cruz odds are right?
If Cruz'z odds go out much further then I'll be kinda forced to back him on a simple value calculation. Is there something I'm missing that justifies Cruz at only a 15% chance?
I'[m staying pretty long Cruz, will send you my book in a bit.
I think you'll lose a lot of money, long term, on Cruz.
In 2012, the evangelical vote accrued just to Santorun, against the insipid Romney. This time, evangelicals have a choice. Both Huckabee and Santorum will come out for Trump in hope of getting his VP slot. Rubio also picks up a portion of the evangelical vote.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
What do you make of the GOP Nom odds?
I'm not sure Rubio should be making up 58% of the market, especially checking Iowa/NH correlation.
Yeah. 58% looks high to me. The odds seem to have the assumption of marcomentum built in - and we just don't have any evidence of that yet.
You'd have to be pretty brave to back @ 1.75
Do you think the Donald/Cruz odds are right?
If Cruz'z odds go out much further then I'll be kinda forced to back him on a simple value calculation. Is there something I'm missing that justifies Cruz at only a 15% chance?
I'[m staying pretty long Cruz, will send you my book in a bit.
I think you'll lose a lot of money, long term, on Cruz.
In 2012, the evangelical vote accrued just to Santorun, against the insipid Romney. This time, evangelicals have a choice. Both Huckabee and Santorum will come out for Trump in hope of getting his VP slot. Rubio also picks up a portion of the evangelical vote.
After Super Tuesday Cruz has nothing.
He has Texas, which votes on Super Tuesday and is the second biggest state in the Union!
As far as I know all the main Republican contenders are amenable to creationism and therefore nuts. I'm not sure about Trump here, but would I believe what he said anyway?
As far as I know all the main Republican contenders are amenable to creationism and therefore nuts. I'm not sure about Trump here, but would I believe what he said anyway?
Rubio's Dad was a bartender on Miami beach so that clearly gives him the authority America needs.
@realDonaldTrump 1 hr1 hour ago The State of Iowa should disqualify Ted Cruz from the most recent election on the basis that he cheated- a total fraud!
@realDonaldTrump 6 hrs Cruz strongly told thousands of caucusgoers (voters) that Trump was strongly in favor of ObamaCare and "choice" - a total lie!
@realDonaldTrump 21 minutes ago Cruz just lied again- I am, and have been totally against #ObamaCare- repeal and replace!
Ted Cruz ?@tedcruz 21 minutes ago Ted Cruz Retweeted Donald J. Trump Yet another #Trumpertantrum… @realDonaldTrump very angry w/the people of Iowa. They actually looked at his record.
As far as I know all the main Republican contenders are amenable to creationism and therefore nuts. I'm not sure about Trump here, but would I believe what he said anyway?
I have just seen the beeb attacking the government over the fact 16000 people have lost their right to a car under the mobility scheme after being reassessed...which sounds bad until you find out the 650,000 ppl are on this scheme & historically once on it you never used to be reassessed. No wonder the welfare bill is bonkers....forget owls.for everybody, cars for everybody more like.
Much better to let Labour sort it out. Government's hard, it hurts.
Anyhoo, while I'm here, what would you consider to be a cheeky offer on a house? I've seen one I like but I think it's overpriced (it's been SSTC then back on twice in the past year with no intervening possession, i.e. two collapsed sales). I'm considering 94% of asking price.
Yeah. We bought three years ago and ended up at 95.35% of asking price. (Mind you that itself was 94% of a previous asking price prior to a sale falling through
That looks very similar to the NH numbers on the GOP side, so Marcomentum has seen him leap from a strong third place in Iowa all the way to... third place!!
Taffys..I don't think many people in the UK realise that there thousands of very expensive cars given away every year..In the Estate in Rochdale there are hundreds of them...must be something in the water..
He'd sell his own mother to be PM, and Leave are desperate. I reckon the senior slot he might have hoped for at Cabinet (had May quit) doesn't seem quite so obvious to him now.
I still expect him to welch and back Remain but, just in case, I'm putting on a few squids.
Carson holding a press conference this hour on Cruz's 'deceptive Iowa tactics.' Additional details 'How a person conducts his life or campaign is an indication of who he is. In Matthew 7, Jesus Himself says that a tree-people of faith-are known by their fruit, not just the words they say' https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/694976607522537472
Question for me is: where will Cruz supporters go if he drops out?
If he doesn't then Rubio + Bush + Christie + Kasich + Firoina don't equal Trump (or come close; he'd still have a 12-13% lead over all combined) so, unless the polls are quite wrong, it'll come down to how the delegates pan out state-by-state over a long race, because I don't think the Trump base is going anywhere.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
What do you make of the GOP Nom odds?
I'm not sure Rubio should be making up 58% of the market, especially checking Iowa/NH correlation.
Yeah. 58% looks high to me. The odds seem to have the assumption of marcomentum built in - and we just don't have any evidence of that yet.
You'd have to be pretty brave to back @ 1.75
Do you think the Donald/Cruz odds are right?
If Cruz'z odds go out much further then I'll be kinda forced to back him on a simple value calculation. Is there something I'm missing that justifies Cruz at only a 15% chance?
I'[m staying pretty long Cruz, will send you my book in a bit.
I think you'll lose a lot of money, long term, on Cruz.
In 2012, the evangelical vote accrued just to Santorun, against the insipid Romney. This time, evangelicals have a choice. Both Huckabee and Santorum will come out for Trump in hope of getting his VP slot. Rubio also picks up a portion of the evangelical vote.
After Super Tuesday Cruz has nothing.
He has Texas, which votes on Super Tuesday and is the second biggest state in the Union!
Unfortunately for Cruz, Texas is proportional. In a three horse race, even if he eeks out a win, he'll barely get a delegate lead. And that's Cruz's problem. After Super Tuesday, he's done.
Imagine for a second that Cruz wins every state after Texas that Santorum won. (Which he won't.) It's still not enough to get him near the nomination. Cruz is done.
That looks very similar to the NH numbers on the GOP side, so Marcomentum has seen him leap from a strong third place in Iowa all the way to... third place!!
There is still the Saturday debate to come. Right now I have the suspicion that N.H. will be a pretty close 3 way race despite what polls say at the moment, S.Carolina will be the key state for the top 3.
Nothing is inscribed in stone, not with a debate 4 days before voting and a severe snowstorm on voting day.
Question for me is: where will Cruz supporters go if he drops out?
If he doesn't then Rubio + Bush + Christie + Kasich + Firoina don't equal Trump (or come close; he'd still have a 12-13% lead over all combined) so, unless the polls are quite wrong, it'll come down to how the delegates pan out state-by-state over a long race, because I don't think the Trump base is going anywhere.
Cruz's problem is that his states are early and proportional. Rubio's states are late and winner takes all.
There's another problem with Cruz: he won't win a brokered convention because nobody likes him.
He'd sell his own mother to be PM, and Leave are desperate. I reckon the senior slot he might have hoped for at Cabinet (had May quit) doesn't seem quite so obvious to him now.
I still expect him to welch and back Remain but, just in case, I'm putting on a few squids.
It seems to me that there are multiple ways for Boris to win:
He backs Leave, Leave wins convincingly => BJ4PM He backs Leave and the result is close either way => he has a good chance, no? He backs Remain and Remain wins convincingly => he's most popular Conservative in the country by a mile, what better stop-George candidate is there?
Of course he has serious weaknesses but which candidate doesn't.
I am gently pink on George atm, green on all the other obvious candidates. The question I ask myself is whether a non-obvious candidate has a real chance.
How the holy F did the inners come up with a terrible name like Britain Stronger in Europe.
It sounds simultaneously forlorn yet pornographic
Britain Straining For Erection
Britain Sucking-Thumb for Europedos
Britain Self-Spanking on Eurocam
For all its faults, the LEAVE campaign is much niftier in this department. VOTE LEAVE. Simps.
BE LEAVE
Would be quite good.
If you want to be friends with Europe, not married to it, BE LEAVE If you don't buy Cameron's 'deal', BE LEAVE If you think Britain can be great again, BE LEAVE If you want protection from euro-meltdown, BE LEAVE
Question for me is: where will Cruz supporters go if he drops out?
If he doesn't then Rubio + Bush + Christie + Kasich + Firoina don't equal Trump (or come close; he'd still have a 12-13% lead over all combined) so, unless the polls are quite wrong, it'll come down to how the delegates pan out state-by-state over a long race, because I don't think the Trump base is going anywhere.
Cruz's problem is that his states are early and proportional. Rubio's states are late and winner takes all.
There's another problem with Cruz: he won't win a brokered convention because nobody likes him.
I'm not bothering with Cruz: it's a Trump v. Rubio fight.
I need to understand the state by state maths and voting systems much better, and to then review polls.
Question for me is: where will Cruz supporters go if he drops out?
If he doesn't then Rubio + Bush + Christie + Kasich + Firoina don't equal Trump (or come close; he'd still have a 12-13% lead over all combined) so, unless the polls are quite wrong, it'll come down to how the delegates pan out state-by-state over a long race, because I don't think the Trump base is going anywhere.
He won't drop out, his ego is bigger than Trump's (afterall Cruz did want world domination at age 18, and has a giant painting of himself with a dozen painters painting pictures of him inside the painting).
He won Iowa, that gives him bragging rights for every state in the south and the prairies, that's why my attention is on S.Carolina, the top 3 need to win it or it's bust for them. The person who wins S.Carolina gets the nomination as things stand, assuming that Trump wins N.H.
Anyhoo, while I'm here, what would you consider to be a cheeky offer on a house? I've seen one I like but I think it's overpriced (it's been SSTC then back on twice in the past year with no intervening possession, i.e. two collapsed sales). I'm considering 94% of asking price.
Yeah. We bought three years ago and ended up at 95.35% of asking price. (Mind you that itself was 94% of a previous asking price prior to a sale falling through
So you'd be OK with a 94% opening bid? I don't want to piss them off.
That looks very similar to the NH numbers on the GOP side, so Marcomentum has seen him leap from a strong third place in Iowa all the way to... third place!!
There is still the Saturday debate to come. Right now I have the suspicion that N.H. will be a pretty close 3 way race despite what polls say at the moment, S.Carolina will be the key state for the top 3.
Nothing is inscribed in stone, not with a debate 4 days before voting and a severe snowstorm on voting day.
True but debates rarely change things significantly. Trump's lead in New Hampshire is also at least double the lead he had in pre-Iowa caucus polls. South Carolina is also a very conservative state, if Rubio cannot win Iowa or New Hampshire he will not win there, as I posted earlier apparently some 'compromising photos' are due to be released on the week of February 14th before S Carolina votes, I will leave you to determine who they relate to!!
How the holy F did the inners come up with a terrible name like Britain Stronger in Europe.
It sounds simultaneously forlorn yet pornographic
Britain Straining For Erection
Britain Sucking-Thumb for Europedos
Britain Self-Spanking on Eurocam
For all its faults, the LEAVE campaign is much niftier in this department. VOTE LEAVE. Simps.
BE LEAVE
Would be quite good.
If you want to be friends with Europe, not married to it, BE LEAVE If you don't buy Cameron's 'deal', BE LEAVE If you think Britain can be great again, BE LEAVE If you want protection from euro-meltdown, BE LEAVE
Question for me is: where will Cruz supporters go if he drops out?
If he doesn't then Rubio + Bush + Christie + Kasich + Firoina don't equal Trump (or come close; he'd still have a 12-13% lead over all combined) so, unless the polls are quite wrong, it'll come down to how the delegates pan out state-by-state over a long race, because I don't think the Trump base is going anywhere.
Cruz's problem is that his states are early and proportional. Rubio's states are late and winner takes all.
There's another problem with Cruz: he won't win a brokered convention because nobody likes him.
I'm not bothering with Cruz: it's a Trump v. Rubio fight.
I need to understand the state by state maths and voting systems much better, and to then review polls.
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
It will be schizophrenic for the betting markets to go from Rubio a sure thing to Trump to Rubio to Trump, up and down 30% in an hour, every week.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
What do you make of the GOP Nom odds?
I'm not sure Rubio should be making up 58% of the market, especially checking Iowa/NH correlation.
Yeah. 58% looks high to me. The odds seem to have the assumption of marcomentum built in - and we just don't have any evidence of that yet.
You'd have to be pretty brave to back @ 1.75
Do you think the Donald/Cruz odds are right?
I'[m staying pretty long Cruz, will send you my book in a bit.
I think you'll lose a lot of money, long term, on Cruz.
After Super Tuesday Cruz has nothing.
He has Texas, which votes on Super Tuesday and is the second biggest state in the Union!
Unfortunately for Cruz, Texas is proportional. In a three horse race, even if he eeks out a win, he'll barely get a delegate lead. And that's Cruz's problem. After Super Tuesday, he's done.
Imagine for a second that Cruz wins every state after Texas that Santorum won. (Which he won't.) It's still not enough to get him near the nomination. Cruz is done.
If Cruz beats Rubio for second in New Hampshire, then beats Trump in South Carolina he would have real momentum going into Super Tuesday, I would not rule out anything yet!
As someone who has recently laid Rubio a 4th place would be lovely, a 5th would be awesome.
I'm not touching that trampoline, that's why I'm out from a week before Iowa, because I knew anything can happen in the last week, and I'm not in a mood to try my nerves on betting on that rollercoaster.
I was out but I consider the markets reaction so bonkers that I feel laying the favourite (odds on!) is the only responsible move to make.
EDIT: Darn, Rubio has actually moved for 52% Implied odds to 55% implied odds since I laid him.
Note the correlation for McCain between Iowa and New Hampshire.
What do you make of the GOP Nom odds?
I'm not sure Rubio should be making up 58% of the market, especially checking Iowa/NH correlation.
Do you think the Donald/Cruz odds are right?
If Cruz'z odds go out much further then I'll be kinda forced to back him on a simple value calculation. Is there something I'm missing that justifies Cruz at only a 15% chance?
I'[m staying pretty long Cruz, will send you my book in a bit.
I think you'll lose a lot of money, long term, on Cruz.
In 2012, the evangelical vote accrued just to Santorun, against the insipid Romney. This time, evangelicals have a choice. Both Huckabee and Santorum will come out for Trump in hope of getting his VP slot. Rubio also picks up a portion of the evangelical vote.
After Super Tuesday Cruz has nothing.
He has Texas, which votes on Super Tuesday and is the second biggest state in the Union!
Unfortunately for Cruz, Texas is proportional. In a three horse race, even if he eeks out a win, he'll barely get a delegate lead. And that's Cruz's problem. After Super Tuesday, he's done.
Imagine for a second that Cruz wins every state after Texas that Santorum won. (Which he won't.) It's still not enough to get him near the nomination. Cruz is done.
As I said downthread, Texas has moved from pure PR to quasi-FPTP.
108 CDs (WTA/WTM) + 47 statewide ("PR" with 20% threshold unless winner gets 50%, then WTA)
If Cruz wins it clearly on Super Tuesday, he'll get a boost and could be cemented in second place in the overall delegate count.
Question for me is: where will Cruz supporters go if he drops out?
If he doesn't then Rubio + Bush + Christie + Kasich + Firoina don't equal Trump (or come close; he'd still have a 12-13% lead over all combined) so, unless the polls are quite wrong, it'll come down to how the delegates pan out state-by-state over a long race, because I don't think the Trump base is going anywhere.
Cruz's problem is that his states are early and proportional. Rubio's states are late and winner takes all.
There's another problem with Cruz: he won't win a brokered convention because nobody likes him.
I'm not bothering with Cruz: it's a Trump v. Rubio fight.
I need to understand the state by state maths and voting systems much better, and to then review polls.
Comments
If this is true, this is a dangerous strategy in my opinion. 'Convinced' they may be, but impassioned to get out and vote FOR it?
Not sure Carswell has got the right end of the stick though, he always strikes me as a bit dopey.
Palin sticking the boot into Cruz big time over his Iowa campaign, for what that's worth.
Whatever the truth is, it just reinforces the image of him as creepy and untrustworthy.
As far as I know all the main Republican contenders are amenable to creationism and therefore nuts. I'm not sure about Trump here, but would I believe what he said anyway?
The leader who never was. Could this be his time??
The State of Iowa should disqualify Ted Cruz from the most recent election on the basis that he cheated- a total fraud!
@realDonaldTrump 6 hrs Cruz strongly told thousands of caucusgoers (voters) that Trump was strongly in favor of ObamaCare and "choice" - a total lie!
@realDonaldTrump 21 minutes ago
Cruz just lied again- I am, and have been totally against #ObamaCare- repeal and replace!
Ted Cruz ?@tedcruz 21 minutes ago
Ted Cruz Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Yet another #Trumpertantrum… @realDonaldTrump very angry w/the people of Iowa. They actually looked at his record.
Everyone knows on the 8th day, God created Donald
There are plenty of deserving cases and I know from experience they are trying to tighten up the rules (cars have trackers, for example).
@realDonaldTrump Perhaps he just meant that you represent a staggeringly good argument for abortion
@charelle_brown 1h1 hour ago
@frankieboyle @realDonaldTrump Fuck you, you cuck cunt piece of shit. ugly fat fuck. GO TRUMP!!!
@Nordic4Trump 1h1 hour ago
@frankieboyle @realDonaldTrump can't wait for Trump to deport you back to mexico
http://morningconsult.com/2016/02/poll-sanders-and-rubio-gain-after-iowa/
Trump 38 0
Cruz 14 +1
Rubio 12 +2
Carson 9 -1
Bush 5 -1
Christie 3 -1
Fiorina 3 +1
Kasich 2 -1
Santorum 1 0 (dropped out today)
Hillary 51 0
Sanders 35 +4
https://twitter.com/neiledwardlovat/status/694977443732520960
He'd sell his own mother to be PM, and Leave are desperate. I reckon the senior slot he might have hoped for at Cabinet (had May quit) doesn't seem quite so obvious to him now.
I still expect him to welch and back Remain but, just in case, I'm putting on a few squids.
Would be quite good.
https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/694976607522537472
If he doesn't then Rubio + Bush + Christie + Kasich + Firoina don't equal Trump (or come close; he'd still have a 12-13% lead over all combined) so, unless the polls are quite wrong, it'll come down to how the delegates pan out state-by-state over a long race, because I don't think the Trump base is going anywhere.
Imagine for a second that Cruz wins every state after Texas that Santorum won. (Which he won't.) It's still not enough to get him near the nomination. Cruz is done.
Tim Montgomerie is tipping your man to beat Hillary in the Times....
Tory tax cuts are God's gift to PB commenters
Right now I have the suspicion that N.H. will be a pretty close 3 way race despite what polls say at the moment, S.Carolina will be the key state for the top 3.
Nothing is inscribed in stone, not with a debate 4 days before voting and a severe snowstorm on voting day.
There's another problem with Cruz: he won't win a brokered convention because nobody likes him.
He backs Leave, Leave wins convincingly => BJ4PM
He backs Leave and the result is close either way => he has a good chance, no?
He backs Remain and Remain wins convincingly => he's most popular Conservative in the country by a mile, what better stop-George candidate is there?
Of course he has serious weaknesses but which candidate doesn't.
I am gently pink on George atm, green on all the other obvious candidates. The question I ask myself is whether a non-obvious candidate has a real chance.
If you don't buy Cameron's 'deal', BE LEAVE
If you think Britain can be great again, BE LEAVE
If you want protection from euro-meltdown, BE LEAVE
Or it could be a load of bollocks.
I need to understand the state by state maths and voting systems much better, and to then review polls.
Where (who?) has the best guide?
He won Iowa, that gives him bragging rights for every state in the south and the prairies, that's why my attention is on S.Carolina, the top 3 need to win it or it's bust for them.
The person who wins S.Carolina gets the nomination as things stand, assuming that Trump wins N.H.
("behave". Geddit? Oh, my gift to comedy...
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml
108 CDs (WTA/WTM) + 47 statewide ("PR" with 20% threshold unless winner gets 50%, then WTA)
If Cruz wins it clearly on Super Tuesday, he'll get a boost and could be cemented in second place in the overall delegate count.