I see that PB continues to stand for Partisan Bile.
What puzzles me is not that political people are mutually hostile, but why anyone goes near a PB gathering.
Yes it has got, um, heated on here which is amusing and disappointing especially as many non-Jocks on PB pointed and laughed (myself included) at the bile swinging back and forth during IndyRef.
I try to listen to the message, not the mode of delivery, and discount the internet heroism. It works quite well for me, but that's not to say we are covering ourselves in glory.
PB gathering? Never have done and prob won't although I am intrigued if the bile continues at them or if everyone clasps hands warmly and laughs about it.
I've been to quite a few PB gatherings though not recently. They are rather like the famous Christmas Day in No Mans Land 1914. Attendees arrive with the expectation that they are likely to be killed for their known alliegances and former actions if they don't first kill their opponents. But on arrival there is an eerie lull and before long an unexpected fellow feeling and warmth develops towards one another, friend and foe alike. Mike Smithson buys everyone three or four swift pints and soon old enemies are embracing and carousing. Then the traditional football kick about starts in the car park.
Sorry, but Bravo to Scott P: he is perhaps this site's most acerbic, caustic, occasionally brutal denizen. He routed tim on most occasions and usually gets the better of Sean Thomas on the rare occurences where they have jousted. I have had one-run in with him too (declaration of interest).
Mr O, any idea whatever happened Neil ?
He's fine but I think has lost interest in pb for the moment.
Didn't he have an outstanding bet with someone here? Or was it settled?
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
£1-2bn well you know what they say about a few billion here...plus the bloke was suggesting government funding. And then yes he said it could be commercially successful. But if so, why not a private investor? Why should the government allocate risk capital to any particular industrial enterprise? Why not biotech?
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
Interesting but how on earth do they work that out? Where do the supposedly Leave inclined but generally non-voting C2s, D's and E's feature in this calculation?
A good and fair question. What I did in the original was give a 2:1 split for Labour GE2015 voters REMAIN to LEAVE but then weighted the Labour REMAINERs turnout 10 percentage points higher than the Labour LEAVErs. Whether that is enough is a moot point, but I think I have the shape right if not the specific scale of the difference. Hence calling this a guesstimate.
On the point of the 2:1 ratio for Labour voters, the "immigration" issue and "billions paid to the EU" are factors that could move this closer to 1.8 :1.2 IMHO.
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
£1-2bn well you know what they say about a few billion here...plus the bloke was suggesting government funding. And then yes he said it could be commercially successful. But if so, why not a private investor? Why should the government allocate risk capital to any particular industrial enterprise? Why not biotech?
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
"Guido hears that Shueb Salar, the Sadiq Khan aide who was sacked for claiming the murder of Lee Rigby was “fake” and tweeting about “hoes, bitches and faggots“, has been applying to Labour MPs looking for a new job. He hasn’t been suspended from the party then…
So far Salar has been unsuccessful, MPs have only had to Google his name to find out about his unfortunate recent history. They were however surprised to see who Salar had put down as his reference: Sadiq Khan, who publicly has tried to distance himself from his radical aide. “Punctual, conscientious, occasional tendency to extremism…”"
Jezza's scowling, reluctant endorsement of Remain yesterday can only be good for Remain. Labour undecideds will think: if Jeremy can make the journey then maybe Remain isn't so bad after all; Tory undecideds will think: if someone like Corbyn has to be dragged kicking and screaming from Leave then Leave couldn't have been that great to start with. Interesting.
The thought of a Corbynite vision of a 'socialist' EU is something Remain would do well to keep quiet.
Imagine Jeremy Corbyn in charge of UK borders, the UK opt-out and the UK budget rebate. If you vote Remain, it could easily happen.
The NHS and the EU/US deal is a very obvious wedge with the left.
People fretting over Cameron's replacement need to contemplate that it might be Labour.
I see that PB continues to stand for Partisan Bile.
What puzzles me is not that political people are mutually hostile, but why anyone goes near a PB gathering.
Yes it has got, um, heated on here which is amusing and disappointing especially as many non-Jocks on PB pointed and laughed (myself included) at the bile swinging back and forth during IndyRef.
I try to listen to the message, not the mode of delivery, and discount the internet heroism. It works quite well for me, but that's not to say we are covering ourselves in glory.
PB gathering? Never have done and prob won't although I am intrigued if the bile continues at them or if everyone clasps hands warmly and laughs about it.
I've been to quite a few PB gatherings though not recently. They are rather like the famous Christmas Day in No Mans Land 1914. Attendees arrive with the expectation that they are likely to be killed for their known alliegances and former actions if they don't first kill their opponents. But on arrival there is an eerie lull and before long an unexpected fellow feeling and warmth develops towards one another, friend and foe alike. Mike Smithson buys everyone three or four swift pints and soon old enemies are embracing and carousing. Then the traditional football kick about starts in the car park.
I'll confine myself from now on to talking to Remainers with a brain, like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and Southam Observer, rather than you.
I have better things to do.
ROFL
I put forward a simple proposition, that all the Kipper separatist arguments were tested (and found wanting) by the Zoomers, and your best effort at refuting this is to run away...
I rest my case
amazing.
so far you haven't actually had a case.
He wants to fight the Leave bogeyman as he imagines it to be, rather than engage with how it actually is.
I haven't had the heart to tell him that Vote Leave isn't run by 'Kippers', and in fact the campaign committee is a joint Tory-Labour affair.
Currently PB is just mindless sledging. Some of the claims being made are just nonsense.
It's not quite mindless. It does have the odd moment of humour that makes it just about worth wading through.
That said, nothing to beat my all-time sledging favourite.
One of the all time great bowlers, Glen McGrath was getting frustrated at being unable to dismiss little known Zimbabwean cricketer Eddo Brandes.
McGrath: “Why are you so fat?”
Brandes “Because every time I f*ck your wife, she gives me a biscuit.”
Quite right. If you're going to sledge, at least be funny.
MalcolmG, SeanT and your good self all regularly make me chuckle.
Exalted company. Praise indeed....
It does seem that the Leavers are actually having some fun, whilst the Remainders are enjoying the Referendum slightly less than anaesthetic-free root canal.
Maybe that's just down to them having grave doubts about the product they are selling?
I can't help but think the remainers are defending party rather than having a bit of free thinking fun.
All I am doing is bringing my usual incisive, clinical, insightful analysis to issues around the EU Brexit debate.
Leavers are having more fun because they are dreaming that the whole country might tell their boss to f&&k off and what could be more fun than that?
No you're voting for what makes sense for you ( Remain ), I'm voting for what makes sense for me ( Leave ).
Neither of us has a monopoly on what's "best" for the country, since frankly nobody knows.
well tbh I hope your first paragraph is understood; it surprises me when someone thinks I (or anyone) lays claim to your second paragraph.
A million people could die today from crossing the road.
The problem with such claims, leaving aside that firms have vested interests, is that so much doom has been mongered I fear the value of doom has been drastically depressed.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
Has it occurred to you its not peripheral to them?
But only 30,000 jobs by 2030 and that assumes we don't get access to the single market. Also it really is small beer - buried in the article is the fact that financial services would still grow:
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
I see that PB continues to stand for Partisan Bile.
What puzzles me is not that political people are mutually hostile, but why anyone goes near a PB gathering.
Yes it has got, um, heated on here which is amusing and disappointing especially as many non-Jocks on PB pointed and laughed (myself included) at the bile swinging back and forth during IndyRef.
I try to listen to the message, not the mode of delivery, and discount the internet heroism. It works quite well for me, but that's not to say we are covering ourselves in glory.
PB gathering? Never have done and prob won't although I am intrigued if the bile continues at them or if everyone clasps hands warmly and laughs about it.
I've been to quite a few PB gatherings though not recently. They are rather like the famous Christmas Day in No Mans Land 1914. Attendees arrive with the expectation that they are likely to be killed for their known alliegances and former actions if they don't first kill their opponents. But on arrival there is an eerie lull and before long an unexpected fellow feeling and warmth develops towards one another, friend and foe alike. Mike Smithson buys everyone three or four swift pints and soon old enemies are embracing and carousing. Then the traditional football kick about starts in the car park.
But only 30,000 jobs by 2030 and that assumes we don't get access to the single market. Also it really is small beer - buried in the article is the fact that financial services would still grow:
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
I wonder how many people PWC plan to let go after Brexit? I presume they have a contingency plan for that.
Darling on R4 reprising his greatest hits: unknown, leap in the dark, risk, risk, risk, risk, risk. Bit early in the morning for repeats. The whiny, irrascible tone he developed during the Indy campaign seems to have become a fixture.
What are you complaining about?
It worked last time.
Though in fairness some of the separatist argument this time has a greater foundation in reality....
'Worked' is an interesting word for a campaign that lost half its lead as it progressed. Of course by Darling's own measure (and as subsequent events have proved), he failed.
'For Alistair Darling, winning the Scottish referendum on 18 September will not be enough. The Yes camp “only have to win by one vote”, he warns. “We have to win this well.” Without a convincing victory, the spectre of independence could continue to haunt the pro-unionists – and as the former Chancellor says: “There is a general mood that people want to put this to bed for a generation.” Although the chairman of Better Together will not talk percentages, the feeling in his No campaign is that keeping Alex Salmond below the 40 per cent mark would be a decisive victory, while a much closer winning margin would not stop the Scottish National Party (SNP) coming back for more – and another referendum – within 10 years.'
Oh dear, reduced to 'We won with a crappy, photoshop vow, so shut up'.
Of course it's not even 'we' for you migrant Yoons.
Nah - you lost because the Scots had the wit to see through that pile of mendacious sh*te dished up as 'Scotland's Future' - and aren't you glad they did?
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
If anger, passion and energy were enough, the Tories would never have won an election. Something that the Remain campaign would do well do remember.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
The EU is largely a peripheral issue in most people's lives. Perhaps that's the problem. You have a relationship with your council, the UK state, but not the EU.
The only time it is visible in your personal life is you a CE mark on a product, when you get your passport out or if you are lucky enough to live in Scotland on a good road. Maybe you work with an EU citizen, but that is usually just taken for granted.
In the vacuum left by the absence of any direct relationship, nasty old reactionary forces flourish.
Perhaps they made a mistake with the EU being funded indirectly through govt. Perhaps there should have been an EU tax and by now there would be a genuine democratic EU culture.
I'll confine myself from now on to talking to Remainers with a brain, like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and Southam Observer, rather than you.
I have better things to do.
ROFL
I put forward a simple proposition, that all the Kipper separatist arguments were tested (and found wanting) by the Zoomers, and your best effort at refuting this is to run away...
I rest my case
amazing.
so far you haven't actually had a case.
He wants to fight the Leave bogeyman as he imagines it to be, rather than engage with how it actually is.
I haven't had the heart to tell him that Vote Leave isn't run by 'Kippers', and in fact the campaign committee is a joint Tory-Labour affair.
Currently PB is just mindless sledging. Some of the claims being made are just nonsense.
It's not quite mindless. It does have the odd moment of humour that makes it just about worth wading through.
That said, nothing to beat my all-time sledging favourite.
One of the all time great bowlers, Glen McGrath was getting frustrated at being unable to dismiss little known Zimbabwean cricketer Eddo Brandes.
McGrath: “Why are you so fat?”
Brandes “Because every time I f*ck your wife, she gives me a biscuit.”
Quite right. If you're going to sledge, at least be funny.
MalcolmG, SeanT and your good self all regularly make me chuckle.
Exalted company. Praise indeed....
It does seem that the Leavers are actuallyroduct they are selling?
I can't help but think the remainers are defending party rather than having a bit of free thinking fun.
All I am doing is bringing my usual incisireaming that the whole country might tell their boss to f&&k off and what could be more fun than that?
No you're voting for what makes sense for you ( Remain ), I'm voting for what makes sense for me ( Leave ).
Neither of us has a monopoly on what's "best" for the country, since frankly nobody knows.
well tbf I hope your first paragraph is understood; it surprises me when someone thinks I (or anyone) lays claim to your second paragraph.
anyone posting their view is what's best for the country - as many on here do - is quite frankly saying they know what's best.
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
I expect "Death" and "Pestilence" will be making an appearance shortly too.
Actually I shouldn't say this but I know a consortium of universities will say Brexit increases our chances of the zombie apocalypse because we'd lose EU funding/inward investment and that will stop us developing an antidote to the zombies.
But only 30,000 jobs by 2030 and that assumes we don't get access to the single market. Also it really is small beer - buried in the article is the fact that financial services would still grow:
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
I wonder how many people PWC plan to let go after Brexit? I presume they have a contingency plan for that.
I used to work for one of Big Four.
Unsurprisingly, the current set-up works very well for them.
They also resist being broken up by the competition commission repeatedly, despite the fact they totally dominate the professional services advice market and are highly incestous. Trouble is they advise Government/public services too and have access to the most senior ministers.
I expect "Death" and "Pestilence" will be making an appearance shortly too.
Actually I shouldn't say this but I know a consortium of universities will say Brexit increases our chances of the zombie apocalypse because we'd lose funding and that will stop us developing an antidote to the zombies.
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs). I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain. Hence, Project Fear.
Feedback appreciated as you have demonstrated a good grasp of top level numbers such as forecasting Lib Dem MPs at the GE.
On your point about Project Fear, the effect of Project Fear may in a long, long campaign be counter productive. If voters become increasingly disillusioned, even bored by this pantomine of communications, "oh yes it is, oh no its not", may drive turnout down. Labour voting working class are IMHO more open to having excuses to stay at home and not vote. Also the unemployed and their dependents have no skin in the game.
It's a really, really difficult one to call. I've played with a whole bunch of different models, and still can't say with any certainty what the result is likely to be.
In a low turnout world, I think Leave has it. In a medium turnout one, I think Remain gets it. As the turnout increases more, those who are disenfranchised and typically don't vote, come out and vote for Leave.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
If anger, passion and energy were enough, the Tories would never have won an election. Something that the Remain campaign would do well do remember.
Bernie Sanders would also be romping home to the nomination and POTUS.
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
Interesting: was it on the Today programme?
yes. As Topping pointed out he had a hefty price tag to take it through to full production ( £1-2 billion) but then as he pointed out materials is an area where the UK has consistently performed
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Darling on R4 reprising his greatest hits: unknown, leap in the dark, risk, risk, risk, risk, risk. Bit early in the morning for repeats. The whiny, irrascible tone he developed during the Indy campaign seems to have become a fixture.
What are you complaining about?
It worked last time.
Though in fairness some of the separatist argument this time has a greater foundation in reality....
'Worked' is an interesting word for a campaign that lost half its lead as it progressed. Of course by Darling's own measure (and as subsequent events have proved), he failed.
'For Alistair Darling, winning the Scottish referendum on 18 September will not be enough. The Yes camp “only have to win by one vote”, he warns. “We have to win this well.” Without a convincing victory, the spectre of independence could continue to haunt the pro-unionists – and as the former Chancellor says: “There is a general mood that people want to put this to bed for a generation.” Although the chairman of Better Together will not talk percentages, the feeling in his No campaign is that keeping Alex Salmond below the 40 per cent mark would be a decisive victory, while a much closer winning margin would not stop the Scottish National Party (SNP) coming back for more – and another referendum – within 10 years.'
Oh dear, reduced to 'We won with a crappy, photoshop vow, so shut up'.
Of course it's not even 'we' for you migrant Yoons.
Nah - you lost because the Scots had the wit to see through that pile of mendacious sh*te dished up as 'Scotland's Future' - and aren't you glad they did?
Yes polled better after "Scotland's Future" was published than before. The longer the campaign went on the higher the Yes vote.
Yes voters made up their mind later than No voters.
But only 30,000 jobs by 2030 and that assumes we don't get access to the single market. Also it really is small beer - buried in the article is the fact that financial services would still grow:
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
I don't think that will be a vote winner for you.
You'll lose your job for a few years because of Brexit, take one for the team.
But only 30,000 jobs by 2030 and that assumes we don't get access to the single market. Also it really is small beer - buried in the article is the fact that financial services would still grow:
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
I don't think that will be a vote winner for you.
You'll lose your job for a few years because of Brexit, take one for the team.
Is that any different than what you have asked steel workers to do ?
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
Interesting: was it on the Today programme?
yes. As Topping pointed out he had a hefty price tag to take it through to full production ( £1-2 billion) but then as he pointed out materials is an area where the UK has consistently performed
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Cambridge people start real business, employ real people, and live in the real world.
Oxford people join think tanks, work as researchers, get degrees in PPE, and then run the country.
But only 30,000 jobs by 2030 and that assumes we don't get access to the single market. Also it really is small beer - buried in the article is the fact that financial services would still grow:
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
I wonder how many people PWC plan to let go after Brexit? I presume they have a contingency plan for that.
I used to work for one of Big Four.
Unsurprisingly, the current set-up works very well for them.
They also resist being broken up by the competition commission repeatedly, despite the fact they totally dominate the professional services advice market and are highly incestous. Trouble is they advise Government/public services too and have access to the most senior ministers.
I thought that even when I worked there.
I also know them well and have worked with them in the past. I wouldn't trust anything they put out.
Sorry, but Bravo to Scott P: he is perhaps this site's most acerbic, caustic, occasionally brutal denizen. He routed tim on most occasions and usually gets the better of Sean Thomas on the rare occurences where they have jousted. I have had one-run in with him too (declaration of interest).
Yes he is. Much the best cutter and paster on here. Witty and relevant. Even when he was blowing Ed out of the water during the last election with some cleverly found quotes he was making me laugh.
(I don't think he got the better of Tim though. Few did)
I miss Tim because his caustic criticism of the Tories provided excellent balance.
I still think this site is the most balanced for political debate even without him, although we could do with a few more lefties (Tim was like three in one) and it's a fave place to learn for an uneducated, unprincipled, easily swayed, naive citizen like me.
Your pieces on marketing and the Oscars were superb by the way Mr Roger, no matter how much of a lefty w*nker you are
A definite shortage of lefty wankers and Tim was worth at least three. I was hoping to do another one when the campaign got going. I heard Sol Campbell (ex footballer and thinker with a £75 million property portfolio) had added his weight to Vote Leave. "Leaving the EU would mean taking back control to the game we love"
But only 30,000 jobs by 2030 and that assumes we don't get access to the single market. Also it really is small beer - buried in the article is the fact that financial services would still grow:
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
I don't think that will be a vote winner for you.
You'll lose your job for a few years because of Brexit, take one for the team.
Is that any different than what you have asked steel workers to do ?
Yes. Just give me a few hours to come up with a justification though.
How many jobs have been lost because what used to be a very large market for us has shrunk in its importance to us? What has been the cost in jobs and GDP of the problems of the EZ in the past 5+ years? How many jobs have been cut as a result of PwC re-structuring reports within companies and government?
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
Interesting: was it on the Today programme?
yes. As Topping pointed out he had a hefty price tag to take it through to full production ( £1-2 billion) but then as he pointed out materials is an area where the UK has consistently performed
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Cambridge people start real business, employ real people, and live in the real world.
Oxford people join think tanks, work as researchers, get degrees in PPE, and then run the country.
LOL but this is steel, don't forget. A bit *too* much real world for a proper Oxbridge type.
I expect "Death" and "Pestilence" will be making an appearance shortly too.
I understood that of the four horsemen Pestilence retired after the invention of antibiotics. His place in the group was taken by the new boy, Pollution.
Death, Famine and War are still going strong even though, in the case of the last two, most people thought they would have been gone long ago. A bit like the Rolling Stones, really.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
Lame duck presidents, IMF chiefs, senior accountants, trade union chiefs, think tank wonks, political pundits, conservative prime ministers, big business CEOs, EU commissioners, Labour lords, City bankers, bank of England policymakers, heads of charities, Police chiefs.
I reckon ordinary voters see very little difference between these people. Hairs on the same Ar$e. Their differences are nothing in comparison to what they have in common, which is that for some unfathomable reason, they are all having a much better life than you.
Guaranteed to wind up both Brexiteers and Zoomers...
@politicshome: Brexit campaigners have "given up all pretence" of offering a convincing argument, argues Labour grandee Alistair Darling in BSE speech.
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
Interesting: was it on the Today programme?
yes. As Topping pointed out he had a hefty price tag to take it through to full production ( £1-2 billion) but then as he pointed out materials is an area where the UK has consistently performed
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Cambridge people start real business, employ real people, and live in the real world....
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
Interesting: was it on the Today programme?
yes. As Topping pointed out he had a hefty price tag to take it through to full production ( £1-2 billion) but then as he pointed out materials is an area where the UK has consistently performed
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Cambridge people start real business, employ real people, and live in the real world.
Oxford people join think tanks, work as researchers, get degrees in PPE, and then run the country.
Oxford people join think tanks, work as researchers, get degrees in PPE, and then run the country - badly
Alistair Darling is giving a very good speech this morning. I think Labour missed a trick not trying to get him as leader (either in 2010 or at some point before 2015).
Obviously I think he's talking rubbish but something has occurred to me. The Remain campaign keep telling us that we couldn't do trade deals on our own and that we can't survive outside the EU. Well that's quite clever. What they're saying is that they as politicians are so feeble, so pathetic that they need to get someone else to do things for them. So if they drill that into the voters' minds then perhaps people will conclude that we better stay in because our politicians are rubbish.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
Sadly, the polls show that Obama is still well liked in the UK.
He might be "well liked" but would anybody seriously change their voting intention based on what Obama tells them to do?
I mean, on 23rd June will somebody actually go down to the polling station and think to themselves; "I was going to vote LEAVE but I think I'll vote REMAIN because that lovely man Obama told me to"
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
Interesting: was it on the Today programme?
yes. As Topping pointed out he had a hefty price tag to take it through to full production ( £1-2 billion) but then as he pointed out materials is an area where the UK has consistently performed
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Cambridge people start real business, employ real people, and live in the real world....
Alistair Darling is giving a very good speech this morning. I think Labour missed a trick not trying to get him as leader (either in 2010 or at some point before 2015).
Obviously I think he's talking rubbish but something has occurred to me. The Remain campaign keep telling us that we couldn't do trade deals on our own and that we can't survive outside the EU. Well that's quite clever. What they're saying is that they as politicians are so feeble, so pathetic that they need to get someone else to do things for them. So if they drill that into the voters' minds then perhaps people will conclude that we better stay in because our politicians are rubbish.
Or maybe not.
In which case, logically, these British politicians should also be proposing to pension themselves off as surplus to requirements. We would better off under 'direct rule' from Brussels.
But only 30,000 jobs by 2030 and that assumes we don't get access to the single market. Also it really is small beer - buried in the article is the fact that financial services would still grow:
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
I don't think that will be a vote winner for you.
You'll lose your job for a few years because of Brexit, take one for the team.
It's saying there will be fewer jobs but still growth, not that there will be lost jobs.
If a potential job in the future doesn't arise, when it might of done, hardly anyone will be any the wiser, as regrettable as that might be. And 35% growth compared to 40% really is a rounding error - the City will still grow and do well.
The real issue would be if there were any direct redundancies. I expect in the short term there could be some restructuring/relocation, and that would depend very much on what sort of deal we got.
Would I understand if those most at risk of this restructuring didn't vote Leave? Of course, I would - at the end of the day we are exiting an economic union we've been in for over 40 years; there will be some change - but it's certainly not in the order of 100,000, and the City still would have a very bright future.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
But only 30,000 jobs by 2030 and that assumes we don't get access to the single market. Also it really is small beer - buried in the article is the fact that financial services would still grow:
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
I don't think that will be a vote winner for you.
You'll lose your job for a few years because of Brexit, take one for the team.
Is this a finely tuned legal mind at work? A sector of the economy will continue to grow but might, might, not grow by as much and so might not generate as many new jobs in the future. This is then portrayed as people losing their jobs.
Meanwhile, policies of HMG are causing real, currently existing, jobs to disappear.
Maybe you should be in the House, Mr. Eagles. You would be good at it.
It's amazing how all these figures who have expressed views that leaving the EU might be a bad thing for Britain all seem to be subject to some disqualification in the eyes of the Leavers.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
Alistair Darling is giving a very good speech this morning. I think Labour missed a trick not trying to get him as leader (either in 2010 or at some point before 2015).
Obviously I think he's talking rubbish but something has occurred to me. The Remain campaign keep telling us that we couldn't do trade deals on our own and that we can't survive outside the EU. Well that's quite clever. What they're saying is that they as politicians are so feeble, so pathetic that they need to get someone else to do things for them. So if they drill that into the voters' minds then perhaps people will conclude that we better stay in because our politicians are rubbish.
Or maybe not.
I don't think any one on Remain has said that we could not survive outside the EU or negotiate trade deals.
What they have said is that such negotiations are likely to be prolonged and that the UK will not be able to dictate terms.
I've just returned from three days in Berlin. Did the usual visits, but I'm old enough to remember the wall going up. It was only later in life that I discovered that some people believed the Russian propaganda that it was built to stop all the hordes of fascists from rushing into the Communist Utopia.
I suppose Ed's dad still believed, and Jezza must have done as he took his motorcycle ride (complete with passenger) around the place.
So despite any misgivings, Jezza is a Remain and will always be a Remain because of the political advantages. After all, some people think that North Korea is a beacon of hope in a benighted world.
I don't think the EU is the old USSR, it's a stab at a political union with the best of motives. Jezza's view that it can be "reformed" probably reflects his view that the USSR could have been made to work better. And so it could, but the question is and was, do you trust a system that gives undemocratic power to a select group?
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
Interesting: was it on the Today programme?
yes. As Topping pointed out he had a hefty price tag to take it through to full production ( £1-2 billion) but then as he pointed out materials is an area where the UK has consistently performed
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Cambridge people start real business, employ real people, and live in the real world....
.
...While betraying their country as a sideline.
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” - EM Forster (a Cambridge graduate)
It shows that I am a member of the metropolitan elite, that I find his sentiment admirable.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Alistair Darling is giving a very good speech this morning. I think Labour missed a trick not trying to get him as leader (either in 2010 or at some point before 2015).
Obviously I think he's talking rubbish but something has occurred to me. The Remain campaign keep telling us that we couldn't do trade deals on our own and that we can't survive outside the EU. Well that's quite clever. What they're saying is that they as politicians are so feeble, so pathetic that they need to get someone else to do things for them. So if they drill that into the voters' minds then perhaps people will conclude that we better stay in because our politicians are rubbish.
Or maybe not.
I don't think any one on Remain has said that we could not survive outside the EU or negotiate trade deals.
What they have said is that such negotiations are likely to be prolonged and that the UK will not be able to dictate terms.
Err they are prolonged within the EU and we can't dictate terms either.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
There seems to be a feeling on here that just because the refugee news flow is relatively quiet right now, remain is going to walk it.
Imagine the consternation if the roots of why people are supporting leave turn out to be far deeper.
It depends on how we choose to read things. Take yesterday's Yougov, for example.
Trust in Cameron on the EU has declined from minus 25 to minus 45 in little over six weeks, so the Trust Dave scale-tipper that Remain were keen to promote seems to be in disarray. Perhaps that's the real motivation of the right wing press highlighting his tax affairs?
Similarly, the Risk Assessment regarding the EU is highly dependent on the young pen-pushing generation.
People talk about ABC1 and C2DE in terms of education commonly, but the truer separation is between people who work in offices/public sector buildings and people who work in factories, shops etc. Young people are pushed towards ABC1 professions.
Category A represents just 4% of the population.
I suspect that small group would be in excess of 50% of the posters/contributors to this site however, so quite how representative the views here are is open to debate.
Alistair Darling is giving a very good speech this morning. I think Labour missed a trick not trying to get him as leader (either in 2010 or at some point before 2015).
Obviously I think he's talking rubbish but something has occurred to me. The Remain campaign keep telling us that we couldn't do trade deals on our own and that we can't survive outside the EU. Well that's quite clever. What they're saying is that they as politicians are so feeble, so pathetic that they need to get someone else to do things for them. So if they drill that into the voters' minds then perhaps people will conclude that we better stay in because our politicians are rubbish.
Or maybe not.
I don't think any one on Remain has said that we could not survive outside the EU or negotiate trade deals.
What they have said is that such negotiations are likely to be prolonged and that the UK will not be able to dictate terms.
"[after brexit] negotiations are likely to be prolonged and that the UK will not be able to dictate terms."
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
why would they go to the polling station ? All those pensioners will just post their votes.
Mr. Llama, quite. It's like when Labour accused the Conservatives of planning cuts (this was around 2006, give or take) because the blues wanted a lower increase in spending.
Incidentally, I sent you a couple of Vanilla mails regarding your query the other day. If you have any more questions, do let me know.
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
Interesting: was it on the Today programme?
yes. As Topping pointed out he had a hefty price tag to take it through to full production ( £1-2 billion) but then as he pointed out materials is an area where the UK has consistently performed
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Cambridge people start real business, employ real people, and live in the real world....
.
...While betraying their country as a sideline.
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” - EM Forster (a Cambridge graduate)
It shows that I am a member of the metropolitan elite, that I find his sentiment admirable.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
Just brilliant. More of this please.
PS. Can you advise Obama on his speech accordingly, please?
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
The quality of your trolling in the last few days has been truly excellent.
Stuck in an epic ''Agile" meeting right now, so can't comment at length, but thanks for all the feedback below.
It's worth noting that the long-term markets like Next PM are pretty illiquid at this stage, but even so most bookies still avoid arbing quite slavishly.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
While I think you may exaggerate a little for effect - the similarity with SINDYRef is striking too - of course the better off, having done well under the status quo are motivated to defend it, while those with less to lose may reckon 'lets throw everything up in the air - what's the worst that could happen?'
The difficulty with EURef is that the traditionally most small c conservative, and most opposed to change - the older - are also the least enthusiastic about the EU - the opposite of SINDYRef, where it was the auld wifies that did for Salmond. They may yet do for Cameron.....
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Guardian, of course, found out exactly what their reaction would be.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
Just brilliant. More of this please.
PS. Can you advise Obama on his speech accordingly, please?
Its astonishing isn't it?
I could almost describe it as a kind of modern 'Marie Antoinette' mentality. Same with roger. Describing callers to a radio show as if they were bacteria in a petri dish.
I based my numbers on a little guesstimated spread sheet with key numbers about turnout by GE2015 party and with a weighting based on their enthusiasm to vote. At the time I did not have much faith in it and said so. Looking at it now it looks much more possible. TCPoliticalBetting LEAVE 53.65 TURNOUT 55.38
I think if your turnout number is right, then your Leave percentage will be pretty close (albeit I'm probably a little less optimistic than you, in particular with regards to the break of DKs).
I think that Remain gets perhps 70% of the turnout increase between 55% and 65%. Essentially, they need 63-64% to tip the scales to Remain.
Hence, Project Fear.
wrt arc furnaces.
I was listening a R4 this morning and a Cambridge chappy was saying they are working on ways to improve product quality from conventional scrap so that you could cost effectively make the highest grades of steel without a blast furnace, Sounded fairly sensible but needs funding.
Interesting: was it on the Today programme?
yes. As Topping pointed out he had a hefty price tag to take it through to full production ( £1-2 billion) but then as he pointed out materials is an area where the UK has consistently performed
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Cambridge people start real business, employ real people, and live in the real world....
.
...While betraying their country as a sideline.
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” - EM Forster (a Cambridge graduate)
It shows that I am a member of the metropolitan elite, that I find his sentiment admirable.
I'd long ago surmised that you and LovingPutin1983 were an item. You fooled no one.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
America only became involved in WW2 after Britain had already survived the first few years, and the US interests were threatened by Japan. They acted in self-interest.
Likewise they 'protected' us to stop communism getting a greater foothold which would have harmed them.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
Sanctimony has always been a key ingredient of Scottish politics, second only to self-interest. It has a long pedigree, dating back to John Knox and his godly Reformers, down through the Covenanters, Gladstone’s Midlothian campaign of tub-thumping self-righteousness and the temperance movement that defeated Winston Churchill for the parliamentary seat of Dundee, to the pro-devolution convulsion in the 1990s when it became commonplace to articulate, without a trace of self-consciousness, the axiom that the Scots are “more moral” than the English.
That self-deluding maxim is the Covenant of the Scottish National Party. The SNP has brought back the rule of the Saints. The “unco guid” – the collective moral hierarchs that inform the conscience of the nation – are no longer embodied in the Kirk but in the SNP, handing down commandments from the moral high ground. In this new Covenanter regime the high priestess is Nicola Sturgeon.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
Britain and its Commonwealth played at least as large a part (more on average over the two wars) in saving Europe from authoritarianism and barbarism over the last century and at a colossal financial cost.
So by your reasoning the US doesn't get to lecture us and we should be lecturing the other Europeans - and they presumably should be listening.
That's assuming of course that you are vaguely serious about anything you write, which is questionable.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
The Americans, have in the last century, helped liberated Europe from two World Wars, helped Europe recover from the wars, by investing money via the Marshall Plan, and they've picked up the defence tab for Europe for the last 70 years and helped slay Communism and stop Communism spreading in Europe.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
America only became involved in WW2 after Britain had already survived the first few years, and the US interests were threatened by Japan. They acted in self-interest.
Likewise they 'protected' us to stop communism getting a greater foothold which would have harmed them.
Bollards, FDR did as much as he could whilst dealing with an insular Congress.
He extended US territorial waters to help the UK, never heard of lend/lease?
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
The quality of your trolling in the last few days has been truly excellent.
All the "remain" posters are getting quite good at it, @thescreamingeagles and @AlastairMeeks have indeed gone from strength to strength...
@Richard_Nabavi 's posts aren't generally liked by "Leavers" but he does at least try and astudiously avoid trolling the site.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
Are you kidding? These are EXACTLY the people who are determined they will be heard - voters with a grudge.
It seems Dave is still of the opinion that Obama is a positive. Asleep at the wheel.
He is in the UK.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
That might well be the case, but overriding such an arguable "right" is the undeniable fact that we British strongly resent being told what to do, especially how to vote, by a Yank.
What on earth does 'moral right' mean? Do we, as a more aged and wise civilisation, have a 'moral right' to tell the Americans how to vote? I wonder what their reaction would be if we said that?
Obama has a perfect right to say what he likes (we can hardly stop him even if we wanted to), the question is surely, from his viewpoint, is it "wise"? I'm guessing Dave thinks it will all add to the background noise of EU leaders/IMF etc expressing the hope that we stay in, and will nudge a few more votes to Remain. The danger is it backfires if people object to being told what they should think and do by foreigners (even a perfectly nice one like Pres Obama). 4th July 1776 cuts both ways after all in the independence stakes.
Alistair Darling is giving a very good speech this morning. I think Labour missed a trick not trying to get him as leader (either in 2010 or at some point before 2015).
Obviously I think he's talking rubbish but something has occurred to me. The Remain campaign keep telling us that we couldn't do trade deals on our own and that we can't survive outside the EU. Well that's quite clever. What they're saying is that they as politicians are so feeble, so pathetic that they need to get someone else to do things for them. So if they drill that into the voters' minds then perhaps people will conclude that we better stay in because our politicians are rubbish.
Or maybe not.
I don't think any one on Remain has said that we could not survive outside the EU or negotiate trade deals.
What they have said is that such negotiations are likely to be prolonged and that the UK will not be able to dictate terms.
"[after brexit] negotiations are likely to be prolonged and that the UK will not be able to dictate terms."
Pretty much like being in the EU then?
Except that we already have agreements while in the EU and many would need to be revisited if we left.
Comments
On the point of the 2:1 ratio for Labour voters, the "immigration" issue and "billions paid to the EU" are factors that could move this closer to 1.8 :1.2 IMHO.
....or do you just do asset inflation ? :-)
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
PwC report estimates 70,000-100,000 fewer jobs in 2020 compared with estimated number if Britain stays in EU
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/14/brexit-could-lead-to-loss-of-100000-financial-services-jobs-report-warns
Imagine Jeremy Corbyn in charge of UK borders, the UK opt-out and the UK budget rebate. If you vote Remain, it could easily happen.
The NHS and the EU/US deal is a very obvious wedge with the left.
People fretting over Cameron's replacement need to contemplate that it might be Labour.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/04/iain-dale-the-task-of-leave-campaigners-now-is-to-come-together-unite-and-fight-the-campaign-of-their-lives.html
Meeaow
A million people could die today from crossing the road.
The problem with such claims, leaving aside that firms have vested interests, is that so much doom has been mongered I fear the value of doom has been drastically depressed.
Imagine the consternation if the roots of why people are supporting leave turn out to be far deeper.
"The report said after a vote to leave the EU the financial sector’s contribution to the economy would be 35%-38% larger by 2020 compared with growth of 41% if the UK stays in the EU."
The only time it is visible in your personal life is you a CE mark on a product, when you get your passport out or if you are lucky enough to live in Scotland on a good road. Maybe you work with an EU citizen, but that is usually just taken for granted.
In the vacuum left by the absence of any direct relationship, nasty old reactionary forces flourish.
Perhaps they made a mistake with the EU being funded indirectly through govt. Perhaps there should have been an EU tax and by now there would be a genuine democratic EU culture.
They don't.
Unsurprisingly, the current set-up works very well for them.
They also resist being broken up by the competition commission repeatedly, despite the fact they totally dominate the professional services advice market and are highly incestous. Trouble is they advise Government/public services too and have access to the most senior ministers.
I thought that even when I worked there.
And that's without considering necromancy.
In a low turnout world, I think Leave has it. In a medium turnout one, I think Remain gets it. As the turnout increases more, those who are disenfranchised and typically don't vote, come out and vote for Leave.
- and he was from Cambridge, had it been Oxford you'd just know it was so much waffle.
Yes voters made up their mind later than No voters.
You'll lose your job for a few years because of Brexit, take one for the team.
Oxford people join think tanks, work as researchers, get degrees in PPE, and then run the country.
Plus an American President does have the moral right to give his views on Europe.
Hmmm
What has been the cost in jobs and GDP of the problems of the EZ in the past 5+ years?
How many jobs have been cut as a result of PwC re-structuring reports within companies and government?
Death, Famine and War are still going strong even though, in the case of the last two, most people thought they would have been gone long ago. A bit like the Rolling Stones, really.
I reckon ordinary voters see very little difference between these people. Hairs on the same Ar$e. Their differences are nothing in comparison to what they have in common, which is that for some unfathomable reason, they are all having a much better life than you.
That is why people are voting leave.
@politicshome: Brexit campaigners have "given up all pretence" of offering a convincing argument, argues Labour grandee Alistair Darling in BSE speech.
CoEs have a track record. Once you see what's it's like you sort of know how they will do.
The referendum is the choice between continually doing the same thing and expecting a different result and doing something different.
wIth Osborne I don't think anyome's expecting anything different but performance below par.
Time for a change and something different.
( thanks for the opportunity to point that out once again :-) )
Oxford people join think tanks, work as researchers, get degrees in PPE, and then run the country - badly
Obviously I think he's talking rubbish but something has occurred to me. The Remain campaign keep telling us that we couldn't do trade deals on our own and that we can't survive outside the EU. Well that's quite clever. What they're saying is that they as politicians are so feeble, so pathetic that they need to get someone else to do things for them. So if they drill that into the voters' minds then perhaps people will conclude that we better stay in because our politicians are rubbish.
Or maybe not.
I mean, on 23rd June will somebody actually go down to the polling station and think to themselves; "I was going to vote LEAVE but I think I'll vote REMAIN because that lovely man Obama told me to"
I can't see it myself...
I keep reading how crap Leave is on here, I'm not seeing this in the real world and the polling is increasingly tight with over two months to go.
I don't suppose they are doing that, though.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-minister-idUSKCN0XC0T3
If a potential job in the future doesn't arise, when it might of done, hardly anyone will be any the wiser, as regrettable as that might be. And 35% growth compared to 40% really is a rounding error - the City will still grow and do well.
The real issue would be if there were any direct redundancies. I expect in the short term there could be some restructuring/relocation, and that would depend very much on what sort of deal we got.
Would I understand if those most at risk of this restructuring didn't vote Leave? Of course, I would - at the end of the day we are exiting an economic union we've been in for over 40 years; there will be some change - but it's certainly not in the order of 100,000, and the City still would have a very bright future.
Not for long, if he keeps telling us how to vote in the EU ref.
Meanwhile, policies of HMG are causing real, currently existing, jobs to disappear.
Maybe you should be in the House, Mr. Eagles. You would be good at it.
Thank goodness there are still a few outsiders that we can trust like Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump.
What they have said is that such negotiations are likely to be prolonged and that the UK will not be able to dictate terms.
I suppose Ed's dad still believed, and Jezza must have done as he took his motorcycle ride (complete with passenger) around the place.
So despite any misgivings, Jezza is a Remain and will always be a Remain because of the political advantages. After all, some people think that North Korea is a beacon of hope in a benighted world.
I don't think the EU is the old USSR, it's a stab at a political union with the best of motives. Jezza's view that it can be "reformed" probably reflects his view that the USSR could have been made to work better. And so it could, but the question is and was, do you trust a system that gives undemocratic power to a select group?
It shows that I am a member of the metropolitan elite, that I find his sentiment admirable.
Trust in Cameron on the EU has declined from minus 25 to minus 45 in little over six weeks, so the Trust Dave scale-tipper that Remain were keen to promote seems to be in disarray. Perhaps that's the real motivation of the right wing press highlighting his tax affairs?
Similarly, the Risk Assessment regarding the EU is highly dependent on the young pen-pushing generation.
People talk about ABC1 and C2DE in terms of education commonly, but the truer separation is between people who work in offices/public sector buildings and people who work in factories, shops etc. Young people are pushed towards ABC1 professions.
Category A represents just 4% of the population.
I suspect that small group would be in excess of 50% of the posters/contributors to this site however, so quite how representative the views here are is open to debate.
Pretty much like being in the EU then?
Newsnight report
http://tinyurl.com/hnldldh
Do fellow union Leaders or those at the top of the Labour party not see thecar crash coming on this?
Incidentally, I sent you a couple of Vanilla mails regarding your query the other day. If you have any more questions, do let me know.
I reckon that gives the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the right to give his or her views on Europe.
Once we start picking up America's defence tab or helped them rebuild after a war, then we can lecture them too.
PS. Can you advise Obama on his speech accordingly, please?
It's worth noting that the long-term markets like Next PM are pretty illiquid at this stage, but even so most bookies still avoid arbing quite slavishly.
The difficulty with EURef is that the traditionally most small c conservative, and most opposed to change - the older - are also the least enthusiastic about the EU - the opposite of SINDYRef, where it was the auld wifies that did for Salmond. They may yet do for Cameron.....
I could almost describe it as a kind of modern 'Marie Antoinette' mentality. Same with roger. Describing callers to a radio show as if they were bacteria in a petri dish.
America only became involved in WW2 after Britain had already survived the first few years, and the US interests were threatened by Japan. They acted in self-interest.
Likewise they 'protected' us to stop communism getting a greater foothold which would have harmed them.
Sanctimony has always been a key ingredient of Scottish politics, second only to self-interest. It has a long pedigree, dating back to John Knox and his godly Reformers, down through the Covenanters, Gladstone’s Midlothian campaign of tub-thumping self-righteousness and the temperance movement that defeated Winston Churchill for the parliamentary seat of Dundee, to the pro-devolution convulsion in the 1990s when it became commonplace to articulate, without a trace of self-consciousness, the axiom that the Scots are “more moral” than the English.
That self-deluding maxim is the Covenant of the Scottish National Party. The SNP has brought back the rule of the Saints. The “unco guid” – the collective moral hierarchs that inform the conscience of the nation – are no longer embodied in the Kirk but in the SNP, handing down commandments from the moral high ground. In this new Covenanter regime the high priestess is Nicola Sturgeon.
http://capx.co/nicola-sturgeons-human-rights-halo-slips-after-secret-deal-with-china/
So by your reasoning the US doesn't get to lecture us and we should be lecturing the other Europeans - and they presumably should be listening.
That's assuming of course that you are vaguely serious about anything you write, which is questionable.
He extended US territorial waters to help the UK, never heard of lend/lease?
@Richard_Nabavi 's posts aren't generally liked by "Leavers" but he does at least try and astudiously avoid trolling the site.