@TonyE - You are looking at it as though it were about trade exclusively. It's not, it's about freedom of movement, principally. That's the most contentious issue, and the key one where we'll have to decide whether we sign up or not. We can't realistically go to all the trouble of setting up the EEA structure whilst intending to dismantle it all again a couple of years later. What would politicians tell voters who thought we'd get 'control of our borders'? They could hardly say "Don't worry, we're not really signing up to the EEA, it's just a temporary ruse", without our continental partners noticing.
In the migrant situation continues to deteriorate, all this angst about freedom of movement could look very quaint in five years time.
Effective freedom of movement long predates Schengen. It is economically impractical for small, densely populated countries to have the kind of border controls we do.
It's also very difficult when those counties have land borders - the UK is at a distinct advantage in being an Island.
........you can't have countries the size of Luxembourg with a third of the male adult population working as border guards.
What no massive improvements through automation and robots circa 2026+?
When the first pissed Luxembourgian farmer gets shot by a robot border guard on his way back from a meal in France, the papers would have a field day.
Anecdote alert. 17 years ago I was regularly entering the USA without showing my passport.
I just went up to a hand reader and it matched my finger prints with their system. It was for Business people at Miami airport.
INSPass?
I've just signed up for the new version of that (Global Entry)
I think that was what it was called. Worked for a year or so and then developed a high failure rate and I went back to the passport.
It was cancelled after 9/11, sadly. I registered for it just before it was cancelled :-(
Not so dramatic when those industries do not recruit new workers/cut jobs in dribs and drabs, rather than when the steel industry threatens a "big collapse". But rationally, those jobs count too, and there is quite literally a price to pay for forcing up the prices of imports.
Correct, the solution is definitely not more expensive steel.
Haven't got the time to read through the thread to see what everyone else thought, but thought this was a good contribution by Roger and I wish he wrote more headers here about branding and political advertising in particular. The point about the gap between "effectiveness" and "aesthetics" of a campaign is a good one. A positive case might be easier on the eyes and ears for the next few months, but I doubt it would have as much impact.
Oh and Roger, a classics note: errant consilia nostra, quia non habent quo derigantur; ignoranti quem portum petat nullus suus ventus est..
Seneca the Younger, Letter LXXI: On the supreme good.
("Our plans miscarry because they have no aim. When a man does not know what harbour he is making for, no wind is the right wind")
Confucius might come second only to Winston Churchill on the "we don't know who actually said it, but that looks like a decent chap to attribute it to" front. (Not a criticism of Roger, more of the hosts of internet sites out there - and books, too - that spread the misattribution into "common knowledge".)
Agreed, I'm not the biggest fan of having the government pick winners, but in the face of others doing the same we have little choice. I would be in favour of putting government cash into a few dead certs like Graphene and laser fusion. I would also like the government to invest in the "sci-fi" technology of the future such as anti-matter production in small amounts.
Honestly given the budget the government have set aside for Hinkley or HS2 we're talking about 10-20% of the money for potentially 10-20x the gain. With Graphene it is almost guaranteed.
What money needs to be spent on graphene that isn't already being spent (i.e. what do you actually want them to do that isn't being done)?
And, if it's a 'dead cert', where can I invest in one of the funds which will no doubt be falling over themselves to put money in already?
For Graphene, ramping up production in large quantities. It requires large amounts of money which so far only the Chinese state have been willing to provide to the British inventors, which is why the production is moving to China.
They are long term dead certs, no fund will be paying returns on these ventures for 10-15 years which is why private investment is so limited.
Thirdly, steel is always going to be a big consumer of energy. (In a sense, exports of steel and aluminium are a physically-crystallised form of energy export.) If we want to be lean, clean and green then that's the kind of industry that ought to be suffering, if our environmental policies are "working". The bigger question is whether "we" (and different sections of society may have quite different answers to this question) really want "our" energy policy to "work" in this manner.
Again correct, this is our energy policy working as intended. A policy supported in most cases by the same parties that are now calling for nationalisation of an industry they chose to impair.
Three other things which are under-remarked in media coverage of the steel crisis.
It makes a big difference what kind of steel production you are talking about. Steel is not a completely homogeneous industry. There are different types of steel being produced, and different modes of production (in particular whether it's being made from ore or made from recycled material) and the situation is different between these market segments.
Secondly, the "self-sufficiency" in a "strategic industry" thing is a bit of red herring, since Britain is not self-sufficient in iron ore. (As I understand it, iron ore is mostly imported from... China.)
Thirdly, steel is always going to be a big consumer of energy. (In a sense, exports of steel and aluminium are a physically-crystallised form of energy export.) If we want to be lean, clean and green then that's the kind of industry that ought to be suffering, if our environmental policies are "working". The bigger question is whether "we" (and different sections of society may have quite different answers to this question) really want "our" energy policy to "work" in this manner.
Absolutely. Port Talbot makes commodity steel, in a huge integrated plant (mostly built 70 years ago), a long way from either iron ore production or major consumers, and pays a great deal for energy.
Newer plants, making higher grade steel, are doing OK. Sadly, Tata chose not to invest in upgrading the plant when times were good.
According to Tata the British government has not helped. Why? Are they too busy sucking up to the Chinese so they can get the Renminbi traded in the City
Because it's led by Jeremy Corbyn, whose priorities are nuclear disarmament, green issues, and the fate of Palestine. Also the use of the EU as a blame sponge ("It's the EU's fault! Somehow!") prevents investigation of the actual problem (the UK government is having difficulty dealing with a resurgent China)
Specifically if issue A is mentioned by x% of the population, and issue B is mentioned by y% of the same population - and there is no correlation between the issues, with the population mentioning z issues on average, what is the expected number of people that mention both issues A and B ?
x*y. z is irrelevant. e.g. half mention fish and half mention snakes; a quarter can be expected to mention both.
Why do you ask?
Thanks Nick !
Yes, seems I was missing the obvious in my logic... !
Yet when you look for any correlation, either positive or negative, between the EU being named as an important issue and immigration being so named, you find none. It's as if the public see them as two separate things and it's only the monomaniacs who see them as inexorably linked.
On steel, the issue about Britain blocking tariffs on Chinese dumping is probably the more fundamental one, because it reflects long-standing British policy - Britain, as an island, sees itself dependent on world trade, so is against almost anything that discourages it, even unfair trading. Our basic position is "So the Chinese want to sell us steel (or anything else) more cheaply than it costs to make? Fine, bring it on."
The direct effect is what we're seeing in Port Talbot. The macroeconomic difficulty is the reason that the WTO has an anti-dumping policy - if China was able to force most competitors out of business, they could put the price back up. That isn't very likely, as there's so much steel capacity around the world, but as British policy in this area isn't just for steel, it's probably a lesson to be learned: don't be so fanatical about free trade that you actually support dumping.
The flip side to this is that "dumping" (if dumping it be: very often the charge of "dumping" is made simply because someone can make something cheaper than us, rather than that they are deliberately making a loss to drive our own industry out of business) is effectively the Chinese government/companies giving a subsidy to our own industries for which steel is an input rather than an output. And those industries are important too.
Not so dramatic when those industries do not recruit new workers/cut jobs in dribs and drabs, rather than when the steel industry threatens a "big collapse". But rationally, those jobs count too, and there is quite literally a price to pay for forcing up the prices of imports.
It am one of those metal bashers and no there isn't really a groundswell from engineers demanding lower inport prices. Engineers would rather have the security of a steel industry.
What projects and research would you put the money into? You must have an idea to say the gain is almost guaranteed.
I'd say the government's best off investing in enabling technology and equipment, such as the Diamond Light Source. When interesting, risky but large pay-off projects need help (say the Sabre people) then help them if possible.
Laser fusion is much more complex. Investing in a group into aneutronic fusion (similar to the French group working on Boron fusion) might be an idea. A very small chance of success, but the rewards are stellar.
And most of all: research into materials, materials, materials.
Agreed that material science needs far, far more cash. If we could unlock high temperature superconductors it would be a massive step forwards. Also on Boron fusion, but that is a derivative of laser fusion, investing in the base technology as well as keeping an eye on Boron fusion is a must.
As for why laser fusion is a dead cert, it has already achieved "ignition" unlike pretty much all other fusion projects out there.
However, I don't think we disagree on this and I'm glad to see that you have come around to seeing Hinkley for what it really is, a waste of money.
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
Yes I agree it would be good to read more. But also for REMAIN. The trend is with REMAIN losing ground to LEAVE.
Rather inspired by Roger's piece this morning, I tried to expand on that on my blog
Very good. PB Moderators can we have this as the main article soon?
Very kind TC, but while anyone is perfectly free to use it I doubt OGH would consider it either a relevant betting post or neutral enough to be suitable for inclusion here.
It always amazes me how some workers are more equal than others in Britain.
10,000 steel workers - Armageddon
10,000 retail workers sacked by ailing high street - bovvered.
I tend to agree, but what usually drives a story such as Port Talbot is the local factor. The town to a great extent depends upon the steelworks. That's not to say we should have any more sympathy for them but it does tend to make it a more prominent story.
As I've said before, we should stick a billion pounds of Govt. money into making these former steel making centres world leaders in exploring the possibilities and creating world-beating production facilities for graphene, the steel of the next century. And if we aren't creative enough to stop the EU bleating that this amounts to state aid, well we should just tell them to fuck right off. Take the French approach. Pick and choose what bits of the EU we like - and disregard the rest.
Agreed, I'm not the biggest fan of having the government pick winners, but in the face of others doing the same we have little choice. I would be in favour of putting government cash into a few dead certs like Graphene and laser fusion. I would also like the government to invest in the "sci-fi" technology of the future such as anti-matter production in small amounts.
Honestly given the budget the government have set aside for Hinkley or HS2 we're talking about 10-20% of the money for potentially 10-20x the gain. With Graphene it is almost guaranteed.
And most of all: research into materials, materials, materials.
Autumn Statement 2014: Manchester to get £235m science research centre
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
Yes I agree it would be good to read more. But also for REMAIN. The trend is with REMAIN losing ground to LEAVE.
Rather inspired by Roger's piece this morning, I tried to expand on that on my blog
Very good. PB Moderators can we have this as the main article soon?
Very kind TC, but while anyone is perfectly free to use it I doubt OGH would consider it either a relevant betting post or neutral enough to be suitable for inclusion here.
FFS when did we last get a neutral article excluding Roger's fine effort today?
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
Yes I agree it would be good to read more. But also for REMAIN. The trend is with REMAIN losing ground to LEAVE.
Rather inspired by Roger's piece this morning, I tried to expand on that on my blog
Very good. PB Moderators can we have this as the main article soon?
Very kind TC, but while anyone is perfectly free to use it I doubt OGH would consider it either a relevant betting post or neutral enough to be suitable for inclusion here.
FFS when did we last get a neutral article excluding Roger's fine effort today?
You must have missed the ones from Don Brind and Henry Manson.
Newer plants, making higher grade steel, are doing OK. Sadly, Tata chose not to invest in upgrading the plant when times were good.
Would you have given the go ahead for that investment knowing that UK energy prices were heading upwards, was looking at an energy shortfall from 2017 onwards and rising unit labour costs? It isn't easy to shut down an existing operation, but as it stands there doesn't seem to be a future for energy intensive industry in the UK which manufactures low or medium grade bulk goods. Without the environment for energy prices and security changing significantly in the short term (both can be fixed by getting rid of green subsidies and carbon offsetting charges) or long term commitments made for energy price subsidisation I don't see how big integrated factories like Port Talbot can stay open.
We are already in the EEA, we would be joining EFTA. IT would not be a ruse, just a stage in development - probably lasting a decade or so.
During that time, if FOM became a massive problem, we could invoke EEA art 112/113 as a temporary measure. But that is unlikely because the government needs workforce expansion to drive GDP and economic policy is currently based on that expectation.
As we've discussed many times, we are in the EEA in our capacity as an EU state. We wouldn't automatically become an EFTA state in the terms of that agreement by joining EFTA: the 'EFTA states' are defined in the EEA agreement as Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Significant modifications to the EEA agreement will be necessary, which will of course require the consent of all the signatories (arguably under the EU treaties the EU states have agreed in advance to accept the QMV decision, which is why I said it wasn't clear that the consent would have to be unanimous).
However, that's not the main point - the main point is the political one on freedom of movement. If nothing changes in that respect after a Leave result, there will be all hell to pay politically, and quite rightly so - voters would have been completely conned. That's why I'd be in favour of respecting their decision, in the event of a Leave result, and going for a looser deal. Of course the economic disruption, and possibly the long-term economic damage, would be worse, but that's democracy. At least we'd get something substantial in sovereignty terms in return.
Specifically if issue A is mentioned by x% of the population, and issue B is mentioned by y% of the same population - and there is no correlation between the issues, with the population mentioning z issues on average, what is the expected number of people that mention both issues A and B ?
YOU B*****D I AM ON MY LUNCH.
OK. I will assume that A and B are independent and deal with the special case of z=2 only.
* P(A and B ) = P(A).P(B ) = x/100*y/100 = xy/10000 * P(A not B ) = P(A).(1-P(B )) = x/100*(100-y)/100 = (100x - xy)/10000 * P(B not A) = P(B ).(1-P(A)) = y/100*(100-x)/100 = (100y - xy)/10000 * P(neither A not B ) = (1-P(A)).(1-P(B )) = (100-x)/100*(100-y)/100 = (10000 - 100x - 100y +xy)/10000
OK. So the answer to the question "if issue A is mentioned by x% of the population, and issue B is mentioned by y% of the same population - and there is no correlation between the issues, with the population mentioning 2 issues, what is the expected number of people that mention both issues A and B" is "xy/10000", where x and y are both numbers between 0 and 100.
The answer for z greater than 2 or an unspecified z is bigger.
What projects and research would you put the money into? You must have an idea to say the gain is almost guaranteed.
I'd say the government's best off investing in enabling technology and equipment, such as the Diamond Light Source. When interesting, risky but large pay-off projects need help (say the Sabre people) then help them if possible.
Laser fusion is much more complex. Investing in a group into aneutronic fusion (similar to the French group working on Boron fusion) might be an idea. A very small chance of success, but the rewards are stellar.
And most of all: research into materials, materials, materials.
Agreed that material science needs far, far more cash. If we could unlock high temperature superconductors it would be a massive step forwards. Also on Boron fusion, but that is a derivative of laser fusion, investing in the base technology as well as keeping an eye on Boron fusion is a must.
As for why laser fusion is a dead cert, it has already achieved "ignition" unlike pretty much all other fusion projects out there.
However, I don't think we disagree on this and I'm glad to see that you have come around to seeing Hinkley for what it really is, a waste of money.
If you're talking about the National Ignition Facility in the US, then that's a weapons project masquerading behind an energy façade. I also STR that it cost four-or-so times what it was meant to cost, at many billions of dollars. Let the US look at that angle, and we'll look elsewhere.
Better still IMO to research high-power lasers (e.g. slab or fibre lasers) that have many potential uses.
I'm still undecided on Hinckley. Keep on at me and you'll probably win. Now, can I persuade you about HS2?
On topic, I'd be interested to hear more from Roger or other advertising-savvy people about what the Leave campaign should be doing. It really seems like they need a Hope angle.
Yes I agree it would be good to read more. But also for REMAIN. The trend is with REMAIN losing ground to LEAVE.
Rather inspired by Roger's piece this morning, I tried to expand on that on my blog
Very good. PB Moderators can we have this as the main article soon?
Very kind TC, but while anyone is perfectly free to use it I doubt OGH would consider it either a relevant betting post or neutral enough to be suitable for inclusion here.
FFS when did we last get a neutral article excluding Roger's fine effort today?
You must have missed the ones from Don Brind and Henry Manson.
You omit Mr Meeks articles that share the BBC's version of impartiality.
Bear in mind that the formula "P(A and B ) = xy/10000" will deliver an answer between 0 and 1. So an answer of 0.63 is 63%. If you want an answer as a number between 0 and 100, you need to multiply it by 100
Proof that Nick is wrong: In the limiting case where punters are only allowed to select one option (z=1), the number selecting both of two options is zero. So z has to be relevant.
Bear in mind that the formula "P(A and B ) = xy/10000" will deliver an answer between 0 and 1. So an answer of 0.63 is 63%. If you want an answer as a number between 0 and 100, you need to multiply it by 100
'Yet the suspicion in Brussels is that he has become a Fifth Columnist for Beijing inside the Justus Lipsius building, either because he is dancing to the tune of London bankers angling for the yuan trade, or because he thinks China can breathe life into his Northern Powerhouse, or simply because the Government has painted itself into a corner over Hinkley Point'
I'm sure Tories won't mind too much. After all Brussels is full of tosh and China is great. But who would have thought a generation ago that you'd have a Tory Chancellor cosying up to the Chinese Communist Party at the expense of the EU? Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised. I'm sure SeanT's China mania and hostility to the EU is typical of a fair few wealthy Tories. And the Chinese are a canny bunch. No doubt they know their history and how Britain has always been a wrecker to a united Europe. So the 'People's' Republic can trade as it pleases whilst it's agent in Brussels sows disunity.
Specifically if issue A is mentioned by x% of the population, and issue B is mentioned by y% of the same population - and there is no correlation between the issues, with the population mentioning z issues on average, what is the expected number of people that mention both issues A and B ?
YOU B*****D I AM ON MY LUNCH.
OK. I will assume that A and B are independent and deal with the special case of z=2 only.
* P(A and B ) = P(A).P(B ) = x/100*y/100 = xy/10000 * P(A not B ) = P(A).(1-P(B )) = x/100*(100-y)/100 = (100x - xy)/10000 * P(B not A) = P(B ).(1-P(A)) = y/100*(100-x)/100 = (100y - xy)/10000 * P(neither A not B ) = (1-P(A)).(1-P(B )) = (100-x)/100*(100-y)/100 = (10000 - 100x - 100y +xy)/10000
OK. So the answer to the question "if issue A is mentioned by x% of the population, and issue B is mentioned by y% of the same population - and there is no correlation between the issues, with the population mentioning 2 issues, what is the expected number of people that mention both issues A and B" is "xy/10000", where x and y are both numbers between 0 and 100.
The answer for z greater than 2 or an unspecified z is bigger.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
'Yet the suspicion in Brussels is that he has become a Fifth Columnist for Beijing inside the Justus Lipsius building, either because he is dancing to the tune of London bankers angling for the yuan trade, or because he thinks China can breathe life into his Northern Powerhouse, or simply because the Government has painted itself into a corner over Hinkley Point'
I'm sure Tories won't mind too much. After all Brussels is full of tosh and China is great. But who would have thought a generation ago that you'd have a Tory Chancellor cosying up to the Chinese Communist Party at the expense of the EU? Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised. I'm sure SeanT's China mania and hostility to the EU is typical of a fair few wealthy Tories. And the Chinese are a canny bunch. No doubt they know their history and how Britain has always been a wrecker to a united Europe. So the 'People's' Republic can trade as it pleases whilst it's agent in Brussels sows disunity.
I trust neither the EU nor PRC. I can safely say that they don't have our best interests at heart, or even anything approaching something other than actively hostile. George us a wrong 'un, but loads of us have been pointing that out for a while now.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
The United States has imposed big tariffs on Chinese steel. Why hasn't the EU?
Because the British Government made the EU adopt lower tariffs (or prevented it adopting higher ones, if you see what I mean)
14 EU countries opposed the tariff.
A detail that does rather change the spin of the story.
There are a fair few countries in the EU that have virtually non-existent steel production capacity as it stands.
My guess is that the bigger steel manufacturing nations want to keep prices up, while the steel buying nations want the commodity to be as cheap as possible.
Just a hunch, and a pretty good pointer towards the conflicts that lie within the EU when the subject of trade tariffs arise.
(However, 'For a man with no destination no wind is favourable’ is Seneca, not Confucius I think).
Yes, thanks to both yourself and My Burning Ears for pointing that out - I have added a postscript correction on my blog post.
It is a great piece, thanks. I have a few comments but sadly don't have the time to respond right at this moment. I'll try to pick it up later at some point.
The United States has imposed big tariffs on Chinese steel. Why hasn't the EU?
Because the British Government made the EU adopt lower tariffs (or prevented it adopting higher ones, if you see what I mean)
14 EU countries opposed the tariff.
A detail that does rather change the spin of the story.
There are a fair few countries in the EU that have virtually non-existent steel production capacity as it stands.
My guess is that the bigger steel manufacturing nations want to keep prices up, while the steel buying nations want the commodity to be as cheap as possible.
Just a hunch, and a pretty good pointer towards the conflicts that lie within the EU when the subject of trade tariffs arise.
But that's true of any country as well: British car makers will oppose tariff increases, British steel makers will approve of them.
Proof that Nick is wrong: In the limiting case where punters are only allowed to select one option (z=1), the number selecting both of two options is zero. So z has to be relevant.
Yeah, OK, when z=1 then that has an effect! But otherwise viewcode and I are saying the same thing for z=2: it's xy (if you express x and y as decimals) or xy/10000 (if you don't). I don't see why z>2 affects it. You could reasonably suppose that if z is large (e.g. people must name 10 things) then probability that they think of x or y both increase, but once you've fixed x and y, the probability of both is xy.
Newer plants, making higher grade steel, are doing OK. Sadly, Tata chose not to invest in upgrading the plant when times were good.
Would you have given the go ahead for that investment knowing that UK energy prices were heading upwards, was looking at an energy shortfall from 2017 onwards and rising unit labour costs? It isn't easy to shut down an existing operation, but as it stands there doesn't seem to be a future for energy intensive industry in the UK which manufactures low or medium grade bulk goods. Without the environment for energy prices and security changing significantly in the short term (both can be fixed by getting rid of green subsidies and carbon offsetting charges) or long term commitments made for energy price subsidisation I don't see how big integrated factories like Port Talbot can stay open.
Totally agree,
What I do find hard to fully comprehend is that it is many of the same people who cheered and advocated for the regulations that have forced up energy prises, are now complaining most about there inevitable consequence; this level of cognitive dissidence baffles me.
The United States has imposed big tariffs on Chinese steel. Why hasn't the EU?
Because the British Government made the EU adopt lower tariffs (or prevented it adopting higher ones, if you see what I mean)
14 EU countries opposed the tariff.
A detail that does rather change the spin of the story.
There are a fair few countries in the EU that have virtually non-existent steel production capacity as it stands.
My guess is that the bigger steel manufacturing nations want to keep prices up, while the steel buying nations want the commodity to be as cheap as possible.
Just a hunch, and a pretty good pointer towards the conflicts that lie within the EU when the subject of trade tariffs arise.
But that's true of any country as well: British car makers will oppose tariff increases, British steel makers will approve of them.
Yes, choices will be governed by money, competitiveness and the jobs that are at stake.
Which is why a trade tariff war seems unlikely to ever be started by the EU with the UK upon Brexit.
F1: I do wonder if Rosberg might get pole and if Ferrari might do rather well in Bahrain. Hmm.
First couple of reviews of The Adventures of Sir Edric have gone up on Amazon (one 5* each on US and UK sites). Also, for those of you on Twitter (or non-tweeting voyeurs) I'll be on, with bestselling sci-fi author Jo Zebedee, from 8-9pm for Q&A and general chat under the hashtag #JoThad.
Newer plants, making higher grade steel, are doing OK. Sadly, Tata chose not to invest in upgrading the plant when times were good.
Would you have given the go ahead for that investment knowing that UK energy prices were heading upwards, was looking at an energy shortfall from 2017 onwards and rising unit labour costs? It isn't easy to shut down an existing operation, but as it stands there doesn't seem to be a future for energy intensive industry in the UK which manufactures low or medium grade bulk goods. Without the environment for energy prices and security changing significantly in the short term (both can be fixed by getting rid of green subsidies and carbon offsetting charges) or long term commitments made for energy price subsidisation I don't see how big integrated factories like Port Talbot can stay open.
Totally agree,
What I do find hard to fully comprehend is that it is many of the same people who cheered and advocated for the regulations that have forced up energy prises, are now complaining most about there inevitable consequence; this level of cognitive dissidence baffles me.
"same people" = The Labour Party & those on the Left.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
This is the same Tory party that you said would be happy to have Osborne as leader, completely the opposite of the experience of many other members on here. I've found that the members I know who are in favour of leaving aren't convinced on the EEA or going it alone, most want to hear the merits and drawbacks of each. I also haven't seen many people who are dogmatic about immigration, but then again I am in London, it may be different for non-London members. Overall I think at least half of Leave supporters would support a deal that maintained free trade in exchange for the four freedoms which probably means the majority of members would support it given that 30-40% of members support remaining.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.
What I do find hard to fully comprehend is that it is many of the same people who cheered and advocated for the regulations that have forced up energy prises, are now complaining most about there inevitable consequence; this level of cognitive dissidence baffles me.
The same barminess that leads to Lib Dems saying build the next generation of Trident subs but never put them to sea, or on Labour's part, build the subs but never arm them.
Proof that Nick is wrong: In the limiting case where punters are only allowed to select one option (z=1), the number selecting both of two options is zero. So z has to be relevant.
Yeah, OK, when z=1 then that has an effect! But otherwise viewcode and I are saying the same thing for z=2: it's xy (if you express x and y as decimals) or xy/10000 (if you don't). I don't see why z>2 affects it. You could reasonably suppose that if z is large (e.g. people must name 10 things) then probability that they think of x or y both increase, but once you've fixed x and y, the probability of both is xy.
You are right, z is irrelevant, unless z is 1.
But if z is 1, then by definition they are not independent choices, so it doesn't disprove your contention.
What I do find hard to fully comprehend is that it is many of the same people who cheered and advocated for the regulations that have forced up energy prises, are now complaining most about there inevitable consequence; this level of cognitive dissidence baffles me.
The same barminess that leads to Lib Dems saying build the next generation of Trident subs but never put them to sea, or on Labour's part, build the subs but never arm them.
Almost as barmy as aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.!
I'm quite sure that is true, but that is because most people haven't thought it through in detail, and the media haven't helped them much.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
What I do find hard to fully comprehend is that it is many of the same people who cheered and advocated for the regulations that have forced up energy prises, are now complaining most about there inevitable consequence; this level of cognitive dissidence baffles me.
The same barminess that leads to Lib Dems saying build the next generation of Trident subs but never put them to sea, or on Labour's part, build the subs but never arm them.
Almost as barmy as aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
What I do find hard to fully comprehend is that it is many of the same people who cheered and advocated for the regulations that have forced up energy prises, are now complaining most about there inevitable consequence; this level of cognitive dissidence baffles me.
The same barminess that leads to Lib Dems saying build the next generation of Trident subs but never put them to sea, or on Labour's part, build the subs but never arm them.
Almost as barmy as aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
Correct. Blair should not have scrapped the Sea Harriers.
What I do find hard to fully comprehend is that it is many of the same people who cheered and advocated for the regulations that have forced up energy prises, are now complaining most about there inevitable consequence; this level of cognitive dissidence baffles me.
The same barminess that leads to Lib Dems saying build the next generation of Trident subs but never put them to sea, or on Labour's part, build the subs but never arm them.
Almost as barmy as aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
Technically helicopters are rotary-wing aircraft.
The blame for the aircraft carrier messes belongs to Hoon and Brown.
What I do find hard to fully comprehend is that it is many of the same people who cheered and advocated for the regulations that have forced up energy prises, are now complaining most about there inevitable consequence; this level of cognitive dissidence baffles me.
The same barminess that leads to Lib Dems saying build the next generation of Trident subs but never put them to sea, or on Labour's part, build the subs but never arm them.
Almost as barmy as aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
Technically helicopters are rotary-wing aircraft.
The blame for the aircraft carrier messes belongs to Hoon and Brown.
Whatever happened to that nice Mr Hoon... Oh look !
Mr. Pulpstar, it's a damned shame John Hutton wasn't Defence Secretary for longer. He actually seemed to both know what he was doing and care about Defence.
He was also intelligent enough to prophesy how rubbish Brown would be as PM.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
This is the same Tory party that you said would be happy to have Osborne as leader, completely the opposite of the experience of many other members on here. I've found that the members I know who are in favour of leaving aren't convinced on the EEA or going it alone, most want to hear the merits and drawbacks of each. I also haven't seen many people who are dogmatic about immigration, but then again I am in London, it may be different for non-London members. Overall I think at least half of Leave supporters would support a deal that maintained free trade in exchange for the four freedoms which probably means the majority of members would support it given that 30-40% of members support remaining.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.
Where JohnO when you need him!
I'm here, sir, always at your service. How can I help?
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.!
I'm quite sure that is true, but that is because most people haven't thought it through in detail, and the media haven't helped them much.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
All rise for your impartial chairman, Baron Jeffreys of Wem
But that's true of any country as well: British car makers will oppose tariff increases, British steel makers will approve of them.
Ah car manufacturers, another "British" industry that only had public sympathy when it was shit.
Danny Baker was on the radio the other week rambling is his ill-informed left wing way as he (not often) does, saying "we used to have a car industry" (I forget why this came up, and there were a few other industries he incorrectly claimed we didn't have). He was of course entirely wrong.
We could be heading for the largest number of cars EVER made in the UK this year or next (beating 1972, when the decline started). The UK car industry is unrecognisable form the 1970s, being really very efficient indeed and a model of modern lean industry in many ways.
Of course 15 years ago people were saying this would all disappear if we didn't join the Euro...
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
There are 10m + conservative voters, around 1% will even be vaguely aware of EEA.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
This is the same Tory party that you said would be happy to have Osborne as leader, completely the opposite of the experience of many other members on here. I've found that the members I know who are in favour of leaving aren't convinced on the EEA or going it alone, most want to hear the merits and drawbacks of each. I also haven't seen many people who are dogmatic about immigration, but then again I am in London, it may be different for non-London members. Overall I think at least half of Leave supporters would support a deal that maintained free trade in exchange for the four freedoms which probably means the majority of members would support it given that 30-40% of members support remaining.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.
Where JohnO when you need him!
I'm here, sir, always at your service. How can I help?
If you have found a consensus view among members on what to do in the event of a leave vote.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
There are 10m + conservative voters, around 1% will even be vaguely aware of EEA.
Correct.
The question is: would those Conservatives (members and/or voters) who want to leave the EU be happy if we immediately signed straight back into freedom of movement?
I don't think so, on the whole. Richard T and MaxPB think a majority would. They might be right, for all I know, but is there any evidence either way?
Mr. C, one of my favourite pro-euro arguments, made by Huhne (possibly after the sovereign debt crisis), was that it would give us greater freedom and control.
That's like locking yourself in a chastity belt, throwing the key down the drain, and planning to embark on a life of rampant fornication.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
There are 10m + conservative voters, around 1% will even be vaguely aware of EEA.
I imagine that's true.
But won't it be interesting when they (and other voters) start to realise there is a free trade alternative to the EU which would allow us to dispense with many of the worst aspects of the current arrangement with minimal economic risk?
[Note: this is why the government spinners, including on this board, have endlessly and tortuously tried to deny such an alternative exists or make silly claims about the nature of it - they want people to think only the existing relationship can deliver the trading freedom most people support].
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
I think.my problem will be the same as yours. Having no idea whether your expetiences are typical of the wider party. I don't know what your social circle is like but mine is mostly rural and market town Tories. Even though I left the party more than a decade ago they remain very much in my circle of friends. There is a solid majority of Leavers and an equally solid but smaller group of Remainers. Interestingly there are very few undecided. Within this circle immigration is not a driving factor for Euroscepticism. Rather it is the questions of sovereignty and cost. As such EEA membership is seen as far more attractive than complete separation.
Proof that Nick is wrong: In the limiting case where punters are only allowed to select one option (z=1), the number selecting both of two options is zero. So z has to be relevant.
Yeah, OK, when z=1 then that has an effect! But otherwise viewcode and I are saying the same thing for z=2: it's xy (if you express x and y as decimals) or xy/10000 (if you don't). I don't see why z>2 affects it. You could reasonably suppose that if z is large (e.g. people must name 10 things) then probability that they think of x or y both increase, but once you've fixed x and y, the probability of both is xy.
You are right, z is irrelevant, unless z is 1.
But if z is 1, then by definition they are not independent choices, so it doesn't disprove your contention.
Ah, excellent, thank you. If I ever go back into politics (not Westminster, but maybe the EU Parliament if we're still in it in 2019) and need a spin doctor, you will leap to mind...
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
There are 10m + conservative voters, around 1% will even be vaguely aware of EEA.
Correct.
The question is: would those Conservatives (members and/or voters) who want to leave the EU be happy if we immediately signed straight back into freedom of movement?
I don't think so, on the whole. Richard T and MaxPB think a majority would. They might be right, for all I know, but is there any evidence either way?
Well it would depend how you define freedom of movement. I'm FOR freedom of movement, this govt isn't.
But that's true of any country as well: British car makers will oppose tariff increases, British steel makers will approve of them.
Ah car manufacturers, another "British" industry that only had public sympathy when it was shit.
Danny Baker was on the radio the other week rambling is his ill-informed left wing way as he (not often) does, saying "we used to have a car industry" (I forget why this came up, and there were a few other industries he incorrectly claimed we didn't have). He was of course entirely wrong.
We could be heading for the largest number of cars EVER made in the UK this year or next (beating 1972, when the decline started). The UK car industry is unrecognisable form the 1970s, being really very efficient indeed and a model of modern lean industry in many ways.
Of course 15 years ago people were saying this would all disappear if we didn't join the Euro...
15 years ago people were saying we should junk car manufacture and rely on financial services.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
There are 10m + conservative voters, around 1% will even be vaguely aware of EEA.
Correct.
The question is: would those Conservatives (members and/or voters) who want to leave the EU be happy if we immediately signed straight back into freedom of movement?
I don't think so, on the whole. Richard T and MaxPB think a majority would. They might be right, for all I know, but is there any evidence either way?
I think around half would, and a majority of all members (leave+remain).
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
There are 10m + conservative voters, around 1% will even be vaguely aware of EEA.
I imagine that's true.
But won't it be interesting when they (and other voters) start to realise there is a free trade alternative to the EU which would allow us to dispense with many of the worst aspects of the current arrangement with minimal economic risk?
[Note: this is why the government spinners, including on this board, have endlessly and tortuously tried to deny such an alternative exists or make silly claims about the nature of it - they want people to think only the existing relationship can deliver the trading freedom most people support].
Yep, they muddy the waters with acronyms such as EEA, EFTA etc and mumble about freedom of movement.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.!
I'm quite sure that is true, but that is because most people haven't thought it through in detail, and the media haven't helped them much.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
does your paper contain the words "mad", "taken leave of their senses", "will regret", "only a fool" etc. ?
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.
Where JohnO when you need him!
Your question is posed only to Tories, but reaching more widely, I think the median Leave position among voters is evenly divided between "Let's have some more freedom but nothing too risky" and "Regain control of immigration". People don't know the EEA, Swiss etc. alternatives in detail, but group A will be scared if we pull out of everything and group B will feel betrayed if we keep free movement, which "everything" (the EEA, or a Swiss-like arrangement) seems to imply.
That's why Leave is staying schtum on the subject. Whichever they opt for, they risk alienating half the support.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.!
I'm quite sure that is true, but that is because most people haven't thought it through in detail, and the media haven't helped them much.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
does your paper contain the words "mad", "taken leave of their senses", "will regret", "only a fool" etc. ?
I've been surprised by the number of heavy metal fans "headbangers" in the leave ranks personally.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.!
I'm quite sure that is true, but that is because most people haven't thought it through in detail, and the media haven't helped them much.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
does your paper contain the words "mad", "taken leave of their senses", "will regret", "only a fool" etc. ?
End of Days, Chaos, Armageddon, Plagues, Starvation....?
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.!
I'm quite sure that is true, but that is because most people haven't thought it through in detail, and the media haven't helped them much.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
does your paper contain the words "mad", "taken leave of their senses", "will regret", "only a fool" etc. ?
I've been surprised by the number of heavy metal fans "headbangers" in the leave ranks personally.
I would point out that the EFTA/EEA countries are far happier than the EU countries with their relationship. I think that something like 80% of Norwegians are happy with the current arrangement. (I don't know what the numbers are for Switzerland and Iceland, but they are probably not dissimilar.)
The Swiss don't seem to be entirely happy - they voted in a referendum to trash their agreement with the EU on freedom of movement, a problem which remains unresolved.
And have just decided to cancel their along standing and unpopular application to join the EU.
Did you see my question earlier about why you think a majority of Conservative Leavers would support an EEA-style or Swiss-style deal retaining freedom of movement? I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but do you have any evidence for this? It doesn't match my experience amongst Conservatives I know, but they might not be representative.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.
Where JohnO when you need him!
I'm here, sir, always at your service. How can I help?
If you have found a consensus view among members on what to do in the event of a leave vote.
I thought that might be the question based on your exchange with Richard. To be honest, I don't really know, having consciously avoided discussing the referendum with party friends and fellow Councillors. Most are aware that I shall vote to remain, while I respect those who are leavers. No point in having a fruitless argument even it is friendly (though a certain tension is beneath the surface even at grass roots levels): live and let live.
But my sense is that the control of immigration is amongst the principal drivers of the leavers coupled with a general exasperation at the EU and all its works. Regaining UK sovereignty is an integral component too. I doubt very many have given much thought to the implications of EFTA/EEA. It's much more gut instinct.
However, I haven't picked up any pronounced anti Cameron feeling or the language of betrayal. Which is why, like you, were there to be a comfortable vote to Remain (say, 7% and above), I am sure the party will get back together in pretty reasonable shape and who-voted-what will not be the determinant factor in choosing Cameron's successor.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.!
I'm quite sure that is true, but that is because most people haven't thought it through in detail, and the media haven't helped them much.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
does your paper contain the words "mad", "taken leave of their senses", "will regret", "only a fool" etc. ?
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.!
I'm quite sure that is true, but that is because most people haven't thought it through in detail, and the media haven't helped them much.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
does your paper contain the words "mad", "taken leave of their senses", "will regret", "only a fool" etc. ?
And throw some any 'reasonable person' 'fair-minded person' etc into the mix.
In fact if we list them all, we can play Nabavi Bingo on a thread.
Proof that Nick is wrong: In the limiting case where punters are only allowed to select one option (z=1), the number selecting both of two options is zero. So z has to be relevant.
Yeah, OK, when z=1 then that has an effect! But otherwise viewcode and I are saying the same thing for z=2: it's xy (if you express x and y as decimals) or xy/10000 (if you don't). I don't see why z>2 affects it. You could reasonably suppose that if z is large (e.g. people must name 10 things) then probability that they think of x or y both increase, but once you've fixed x and y, the probability of both is xy.
You are right, z is irrelevant, unless z is 1.
But if z is 1, then by definition they are not independent choices, so it doesn't disprove your contention.
Ah, excellent, thank you. If I ever go back into politics (not Westminster, but maybe the EU Parliament if we're still in it in 2019) and need a spin doctor, you will leap to mind...
Euro-Nick...As forecast by one Hersham pbTory not so very long ago. Takes one pol to know another.
Proof that Nick is wrong: In the limiting case where punters are only allowed to select one option (z=1), the number selecting both of two options is zero. So z has to be relevant.
Yeah, OK, when z=1 then that has an effect! But otherwise viewcode and I are saying the same thing for z=2: it's xy (if you express x and y as decimals) or xy/10000 (if you don't). I don't see why z>2 affects it. You could reasonably suppose that if z is large (e.g. people must name 10 things) then probability that they think of x or y both increase, but once you've fixed x and y, the probability of both is xy.
You are right, z is irrelevant, unless z is 1.
But if z is 1, then by definition they are not independent choices, so it doesn't disprove your contention.
z=1 would make no difference either, since @Pulpstar said "with the population mentioning z issues on average".
Proof that Nick is wrong: In the limiting case where punters are only allowed to select one option (z=1), the number selecting both of two options is zero. So z has to be relevant.
Yeah, OK, when z=1 then that has an effect! But otherwise viewcode and I are saying the same thing for z=2: it's xy (if you express x and y as decimals) or xy/10000 (if you don't). I don't see why z>2 affects it. You could reasonably suppose that if z is large (e.g. people must name 10 things) then probability that they think of x or y both increase, but once you've fixed x and y, the probability of both is xy.
You are right, z is irrelevant, unless z is 1.
But if z is 1, then by definition they are not independent choices, so it doesn't disprove your contention.
Ah, excellent, thank you. If I ever go back into politics (not Westminster, but maybe the EU Parliament if we're still in it in 2019) and need a spin doctor, you will leap to mind...
Euro-Nick...As forecast by one Hersham pbTory not so very long ago. Takes one pol to know another.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.!
I'm quite sure that is true, but that is because most people haven't thought it through in detail, and the media haven't helped them much.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
There are only two options on the ballot paper, Mr Navabi: REMAIN and LEAVE. What they mean in practice, I have no idea. And neither has anybody else. Not even you.
Why Cameron is wasting our time and money on this tomfoolery - apart from papering over the cracks in the Tory Party before the election - I am at a loss to understand.
A half-decent Chancellor would have stopped him in his tracks.
Tata's plan to reverse their inward direct investment (which we were all supposed to be so pleased about a few years ago) seems to have brought the fore several issues that our politicians have been trying to ignore or hide for a long time.
Running a massive current account deficit for years on end actually does matter. Politicians prancing about on the "world stage", and introducing policies so they can "lead" on climate change has real costs that are carried by ordinary people. Politicians trying to organise, for their own electoral prospects, feel good factors warps policy and leads to poor governance.
Then we have the crisis in public services. The word crisis is much over-used, but when it comes to health and education there is no other word that fits. Much of that is caused by the over-expansion of the size of the population without the commensurate investment in essential services, let alone long-term necessities like transport.
All of this has been bubbling away for years but now, possibly because the EU Referendum is focusing minds on essentials, it seems to coming to the boil. A fecking great crash is on the horizon, I think.
Politically, Labour ought to be steaming into the lead about now but, and forget Corbyn, they ain't because Labour have, for decades, been in favour of the issues that are driving this, possible, crash. Betting wise, I would, if I still thought I'd be around to collect, be putting money into the "angry" parties winning over the next ten years or so.
As it is the next time I pass the betting shop I'll try and get a bet on that George Osborne won't be Chancellor in six months time.
Comments
......Help! !!!!
Oh and Roger, a classics note: errant consilia nostra, quia non habent quo derigantur; ignoranti quem portum petat nullus suus ventus est..
Seneca the Younger, Letter LXXI: On the supreme good.
("Our plans miscarry because they have no aim. When a man does not know what harbour he is making for, no wind is the right wind")
Confucius might come second only to Winston Churchill on the "we don't know who actually said it, but that looks like a decent chap to attribute it to" front. (Not a criticism of Roger, more of the hosts of internet sites out there - and books, too - that spread the misattribution into "common knowledge".)
They are long term dead certs, no fund will be paying returns on these ventures for 10-15 years which is why private investment is so limited.
Newer plants, making higher grade steel, are doing OK. Sadly, Tata chose not to invest in upgrading the plant when times were good.
French more keen on Brexit than British, says major poll
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/01/french-more-keen-on-brexit-than-british-says-major-poll/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Yes, seems I was missing the obvious in my logic... !
I am checking Alastair Meek's hypothesis: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c9VJ07aIegT5OSAhKfCwZ59s_UYl3vglkuorZruNqDc/edit#gid=192710685 the EU and immigration appear to be moderately positively correlated at first glance.
Actual number mentioning both =(1.17)* (Expected number mentioning both)
I'd need to check more data to be sure though.
Schools and hospitals blow it out the water, mind ! (1.77)
Your post is just bollocks.
As for why laser fusion is a dead cert, it has already achieved "ignition" unlike pretty much all other fusion projects out there.
However, I don't think we disagree on this and I'm glad to see that you have come around to seeing Hinkley for what it really is, a waste of money.
I hasten to add that materials is not my area. It is my sister-in-laws though. ;-)
OK. I will assume that A and B are independent and deal with the special case of z=2 only.
* P(A and B ) = P(A).P(B ) = x/100*y/100 = xy/10000
* P(A not B ) = P(A).(1-P(B )) = x/100*(100-y)/100 = (100x - xy)/10000
* P(B not A) = P(B ).(1-P(A)) = y/100*(100-x)/100 = (100y - xy)/10000
* P(neither A not B ) = (1-P(A)).(1-P(B )) = (100-x)/100*(100-y)/100 = (10000 - 100x - 100y +xy)/10000
Quick check: total = (xy + 100x - xy + 100y - xy + 10000 - 100x - 100y +xy)/10000 = 1
OK. So the answer to the question "if issue A is mentioned by x% of the population, and issue B is mentioned by y% of the same population - and there is no correlation between the issues, with the population mentioning 2 issues, what is the expected number of people that mention both issues A and B" is "xy/10000", where x and y are both numbers between 0 and 100.
The answer for z greater than 2 or an unspecified z is bigger.
You so owe me a drink.
Better still IMO to research high-power lasers (e.g. slab or fibre lasers) that have many potential uses.
I'm still undecided on Hinckley. Keep on at me and you'll probably win. Now, can I persuade you about HS2?
(However, 'For a man with no destination no wind is favourable’ is Seneca, not Confucius I think).
Bear in mind that the formula "P(A and B ) = xy/10000" will deliver an answer between 0 and 1. So an answer of 0.63 is 63%. If you want an answer as a number between 0 and 100, you need to multiply it by 100
Proof that Nick is wrong: In the limiting case where punters are only allowed to select one option (z=1), the number selecting both of two options is zero. So z has to be relevant.
People's total concern sums through to 311% (44% immigration, 38% NHS etc etc).
@Richard_Nabavi Interesting
'Yet the suspicion in Brussels is that he has become a Fifth Columnist for Beijing inside the Justus Lipsius building, either because he is dancing to the tune of London bankers angling for the yuan trade, or because he thinks China can breathe life into his Northern Powerhouse, or simply because the Government has painted itself into a corner over Hinkley Point'
I'm sure Tories won't mind too much. After all Brussels is full of tosh and China is great. But who would have thought a generation ago that you'd have a Tory Chancellor cosying up to the Chinese Communist Party at the expense of the EU? Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised. I'm sure SeanT's China mania and hostility to the EU is typical of a fair few wealthy Tories. And the Chinese are a canny bunch. No doubt they know their history and how Britain has always been a wrecker to a united Europe. So the 'People's' Republic can trade as it pleases whilst it's agent in Brussels sows disunity.
My guess is that the bigger steel manufacturing nations want to keep prices up, while the steel buying nations want the commodity to be as cheap as possible.
Just a hunch, and a pretty good pointer towards the conflicts that lie within the EU when the subject of trade tariffs arise.
Really good contribution, regardless.
What I do find hard to fully comprehend is that it is many of the same people who cheered and advocated for the regulations that have forced up energy prises, are now complaining most about there inevitable consequence; this level of cognitive dissidence baffles me.
Which is why a trade tariff war seems unlikely to ever be started by the EU with the UK upon Brexit.
F1: I do wonder if Rosberg might get pole and if Ferrari might do rather well in Bahrain. Hmm.
First couple of reviews of The Adventures of Sir Edric have gone up on Amazon (one 5* each on US and UK sites). Also, for those of you on Twitter (or non-tweeting voyeurs) I'll be on, with bestselling sci-fi author Jo Zebedee, from 8-9pm for Q&A and general chat under the hashtag #JoThad.
Your position on Europe, either totally in or totally out, is not representative of how other members think from my experience, but as I said I'm in London which may also not be representative.
Where JohnO when you need him!
But if z is 1, then by definition they are not independent choices, so it doesn't disprove your contention.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper. What has been very noticeable is that even quite politically-engaged people don't know much about the options.
The blame for the aircraft carrier messes belongs to Hoon and Brown.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388195/Disgraced-Geoff-Hoon-lands-job-defence-firm-Westland.html
He was also intelligent enough to prophesy how rubbish Brown would be as PM.
We could be heading for the largest number of cars EVER made in the UK this year or next (beating 1972, when the decline started). The UK car industry is unrecognisable form the 1970s, being really very efficient indeed and a model of modern lean industry in many ways.
Of course 15 years ago people were saying this would all disappear if we didn't join the Euro...
The question is: would those Conservatives (members and/or voters) who want to leave the EU be happy if we immediately signed straight back into freedom of movement?
I don't think so, on the whole. Richard T and MaxPB think a majority would. They might be right, for all I know, but is there any evidence either way?
That's like locking yourself in a chastity belt, throwing the key down the drain, and planning to embark on a life of rampant fornication.
But won't it be interesting when they (and other voters) start to realise there is a free trade alternative to the EU which would allow us to dispense with many of the worst aspects of the current arrangement with minimal economic risk?
[Note: this is why the government spinners, including on this board, have endlessly and tortuously tried to deny such an alternative exists or make silly claims about the nature of it - they want people to think only the existing relationship can deliver the trading freedom most people support].
Cf steel today.
That's why Leave is staying schtum on the subject. Whichever they opt for, they risk alienating half the support.
As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting on this very subject next week, for which I've written a non-partisan briefing paper
At this rate The Daily Mash will be finished
'You are now to retire (as indeed should I) carefully to consider your verdict of not guilty. '
But my sense is that the control of immigration is amongst the principal drivers of the leavers coupled with a general exasperation at the EU and all its works. Regaining UK sovereignty is an integral component too. I doubt very many have given much thought to the implications of EFTA/EEA. It's much more gut instinct.
However, I haven't picked up any pronounced anti Cameron feeling or the language of betrayal. Which is why, like you, were there to be a comfortable vote to Remain (say, 7% and above), I am sure the party will get back together in pretty reasonable shape and who-voted-what will not be the determinant factor in choosing Cameron's successor.
What will the odds be if we go into Cleveland with the scores at:
Trump 1221
Cruz 731
Rubio 174
Kasich 166
In fact if we list them all, we can play Nabavi Bingo on a thread.
Why Cameron is wasting our time and money on this tomfoolery - apart from papering over the cracks in the Tory Party before the election - I am at a loss to understand.
A half-decent Chancellor would have stopped him in his tracks.
Running a massive current account deficit for years on end actually does matter. Politicians prancing about on the "world stage", and introducing policies so they can "lead" on climate change has real costs that are carried by ordinary people. Politicians trying to organise, for their own electoral prospects, feel good factors warps policy and leads to poor governance.
Then we have the crisis in public services. The word crisis is much over-used, but when it comes to health and education there is no other word that fits. Much of that is caused by the over-expansion of the size of the population without the commensurate investment in essential services, let alone long-term necessities like transport.
All of this has been bubbling away for years but now, possibly because the EU Referendum is focusing minds on essentials, it seems to coming to the boil. A fecking great crash is on the horizon, I think.
Politically, Labour ought to be steaming into the lead about now but, and forget Corbyn, they ain't because Labour have, for decades, been in favour of the issues that are driving this, possible, crash. Betting wise, I would, if I still thought I'd be around to collect, be putting money into the "angry" parties winning over the next ten years or so.
As it is the next time I pass the betting shop I'll try and get a bet on that George Osborne won't be Chancellor in six months time.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD