Can we have another MEEKS editorial, explaining how LEAVE have been left reeling after all those blows to the "solar plexus" from REMAIN's amazing opening week.
Then maybe some commentary from NABAVI about how REMAIN are dancing away with this, with a near perfect use of blah blah fucking blah
CHORTLE
They are a bit like the know-alls who for the last few months have been saying Leicester can't really win the Premiership, that the cold harsh reality of the moneybags clubs having overwhelmingly superior squads would end Leicester's run sooner or later. It hasn't unfolded the way the "experts" predicted. Sometimes the outsider does win.
The difference is that Leicester's was not a late surge (though Spurs arguably did). Leicester City have been top of the League for months.
Personally, I do not trust the polls on this. Online polls are holed under the waterline by biased panels, and phone polls are only marginally better. This referendum has no recent precedent, past voting weighting and turnout are very uncertain bits of hocus pocus to come up with plausible results. My tea leaves are nearly as valid.
My advice is to play to the whistle, not watch the polls, and applies to both sides.
If the headline figures are for Leave, imagine what happens when the numbers are properly adjusted for propensity to vote. Remainers don't want the EU, they just don't fancy much change. Not a massive motivation to get off their arses and get out to the polling booth. For leavers this vote is a once in a lifetime event.
Yep. We know the demographic that get's out to vote (oldies) breaks for leave while the yoof who don't bother breaks for remain.
Seriously mate. You're in danger of making this site look like a laughing stock (which I don't want, I Lurrrrve PB)
You need some threaders discussing why REMAIN isn't working as expected. Because it isn't. Spare us another prolix pile of wank from MEEKS telling us how brilliant the REMAIN camp is and how LEAVE must bang on about nasty immigrants as it's their only hope, being 50 points behind.
PB's sterling reputation for neutrality is at stake. I'm serious.
If people actually read his pieces, you might be better informed, even the Leavers who read it were agreeing with him.
Mr Meeks would also point out he thought Obama's intervention might backfire.
We've all written pieces why Leave might win, unfortunately people seem to forget that.
I have to agree with SeanT, while I always love reading the below the line discussion (although rarely comment myself) - the above the line threads have lately abandoned any attempt at neutrality, especially the ones with no mention of betting [Such as those threads solely criticising campaign decisions without any data to justify it.]
Thing is, if PROJECT FEAR doesn't work, where do you go? PROJECT TERRORISE? PROJECT THREATEN ALL LEAVE VOTERS WITH CLAW HAMMERS?
What?
Do you double down on FEAR? Or do you change tack? Questions for Mr Cameron.
Two points. This is point 1.
During World War II, the allied forces were beset by generals trying to land a knockout blow, with Montgomery and Patton arguing with each other. This process cumulated in Operation Market Garden, a clever plan which (if all the pieces fell in the place) would hve won the war quickly. Of course it didn't work and was the most almighty fuckup. Bradley (or was it Eisenhower, I forget) abandoned all thoughts of knockout blows and operated on a broad front, gradually and painstakingly rolling up the German forces inch by bloody inch across the whole of Western Europe. This approach won the war.
If REMAIN are to win (and they may not), this is the approach they must adopt. Nothing else has worked to date.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
You told us on the day of Obama's visit that it was all a splendid example of the brilliance of REMAIN's campaign.
Just shut up. You're simply embarrassing now.
Well, I'm not sure Obama was speaking for the Remain campaign, but, yes, the Remain campaign has been very well focused and disciplined, and Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, such as it was. Those points remain valid, and my prediction that there could well be a small shift to Leave following the 'bullying' was correct. Were you to calm down and engage brain, you'd immediately see that there's no contradiction between any of these points.
Edit: As for what the Remain side does now, I expect they will continue doing pretty much what they have done so, repeating the same message as nauseam so that it eventually trickles through to the unengaged. The one change they need to make is to find a counter to Leave's mendacious but effective NHS line. Ideally they'd also try to neutralise the immigration argument (Leave's strongest suit, as Alastair rightly pointed out earlier), but that's very tricky one, and they might prefer just to change the subject.
A lot of talk about "don't knows" breaking for Remain.
On the day they may well do, but this graph shows a steady decline in their numbers since July last year, and a corresponding increase in the Leave share, together with a small decline in the Remain vote:
I've always thought it's possible that "Don't knows" and even some "Remainers" might actually be for Leave.
People who want "out" have been smeared as racist, xenaphobic, "Little Englander" "closet racists" "fruitcakes" etc...
If you were a 10/10 Tory or Labour voter but wanted to leave the EU would you actually admit that to a pollster knowing the stigma that's attached to being a "leaver"?
I think you'd be inclined to lie, especially to phone pollsters...
Personally, I do not trust the polls on this. Online polls are holed under the waterline by biased panels, and phone polls are only marginally better. This referendum has no recent precedent, past voting weighting and turnout are very uncertain bits of hocus pocus to come up with plausible results. My tea leaves are nearly as valid.
My advice is to play to the whistle, not watch the polls, and applies to both sides.
I agree, the polls are more for fun than anything. But it does amuse me when movements don't follow predictions.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
You told us on the day of Obama's visit that it was all a splendid example of the brilliance of REMAIN's campaign.
Just shut up. You're simply embarrassing now.
Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, such as it was.
It really didn't mate. You asserting this point doesn't make it true.
You guys run the risk of only just winning the referendum if you carry on like this, but losing the argument.
And there's still the risk you might *actually* lose the whole thing. Period.
Thing is, if PROJECT FEAR doesn't work, where do you go? PROJECT TERRORISE? PROJECT THREATEN ALL LEAVE VOTERS WITH CLAW HAMMERS?
What?
Do you double down on FEAR? Or do you change tack? Questions for Mr Cameron.
Two points. This is point 1.
During World War II, the allied forces were beset by generals trying to land a knockout blow, with Montgomery and Patton arguing with each other. This process cumulated in Operation Market Garden, a clever plan which (if all the pieces fell in the place) would hve won the war quickly. Of course it didn't work and was the most almighty fuckup. Bradley (or was it Eisenhower, I forget) abandoned all thoughts of knockout blows and operated on a broad front, gradually and painstakingly rolling up the German forces inch by bloody inch across the whole of Western Europe. This approach won the war.
If REMAIN are to win (and they may not), this is the approach they must adopt. Nothing else has worked to date.
Very astute comment. The only knockout blow to the Leave movement would be a convincing result on the day of the referendum. It can't be achieved by any campaign interventions or pompous declarations of righteousness.
Thing is, if PROJECT FEAR doesn't work, where do you go? PROJECT TERRORISE? PROJECT THREATEN ALL LEAVE VOTERS WITH CLAW HAMMERS?
What?
Do you double down on FEAR? Or do you change tack? Questions for Mr Cameron.
Two points. This is point 2.
I once attended a lecture given by senior army personnel at the two-thirds stage of the Afghan war: all blazers and ties, incredible posture: those people don't walk they stride, it's like watching machines moving. Conflict statistics is one of the more challenging sides of the business: it's horribly dangerous but can produce remarkable results (the move from regimental caps to steel helmets being the classic). It became obvious during the lecture that they didn't think they were going to win: the tone was melancholic, resigned, "what to do", all the sentences trailed off. There comes a point in a conflict where one is losing but can still win: the resources and ability is still there, but people start doing cost-benefit analyses and what seemed easy is now so difficult, and so, and so, and so... At this point the critical decision is whether to keep going or look for excuses to fail. It will be fascinating to see which approach REMAIN will adopt in the days ahead.
Perhaps you could get in touch and tell them to, y'know, get a bit of a grip? Like.. not destroy their own party for a 'European Union' that no-one likes, not even the ones who are reluctantly voting to stay in it?
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
You told us on the day of Obama's visit that it was all a splendid example of the brilliance of REMAIN's campaign.
Just shut up. You're simply embarrassing now.
Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, such as it was.
It really didn't mate. You asserting this point doesn't make it true.
You guys run the risk of only just winning the referendum if you carry on like this, but losing the argument.
And there's still the risk you might *actually* lose the whole thing. Period.
Can we hear some of your RemainRap?
I've no idea why you keep thinking I'm something to do with the Remain campaign. I'm a neutral observer, taking no part in this other than commenting on the politics.
Of course Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, that's why Leave went so utterly ballistic and counter-productively ad-hominem over it. Leave's principal, albeit rather vague, economic argument has been 'we will be able to sign favourable trade deals with the US and other important markets to compensate for the less favourable access to the Single Market'. That was always a very thin argument, but it sounded vaguely plausible. Not any more.
A lot of talk about "don't knows" breaking for Remain.
On the day they may well do, but this graph shows a steady decline in their numbers since July last year, and a corresponding increase in the Leave share, together with a small decline in the Remain vote:
I've always thought it's possible that "Don't knows" and even some "Remainers" might actually be for Leave.
People who want "out" have been smeared as racist, xenaphobic, "Little Englander" "closet racists" "fruitcakes" etc...
If you were a 10/10 Tory or Labour voter but wanted to leave the EU would you actually admit that to a pollster knowing the stigma that's attached to being a "leaver"?
I think you'd be inclined to lie, especially to phone pollsters...
Quite. There are two large factors swinging it for the Leave side that the pollsters are totally incapable of really capturing. The propensity to vote and the shy Leaver. Both will significantly increase the true Leave figures. Whilst I'm quite sceptical of polls in general and believe the headline polling numbers to be bollocks I do believe that trends likely contain some information. So it's looking good for Leave today and that's after a lot of wild cards and dirty tactics from the establishment.
Thing is, if PROJECT FEAR doesn't work, where do you go? PROJECT TERRORISE? PROJECT THREATEN ALL LEAVE VOTERS WITH CLAW HAMMERS?
What?
Do you double down on FEAR? Or do you change tack? Questions for Mr Cameron.
Two points. This is point 1.
During World War II, the allied forces were beset by generals trying to land a knockout blow, with Montgomery and Patton arguing with each other. This process cumulated in Operation Market Garden, a clever plan which (if all the pieces fell in the place) would hve won the war quickly. Of course it didn't work and was the most almighty fuckup. Bradley (or was it Eisenhower, I forget) abandoned all thoughts of knockout blows and operated on a broad front, gradually and painstakingly rolling up the German forces inch by bloody inch across the whole of Western Europe. This approach won the war.
If REMAIN are to win (and they may not), this is the approach they must adopt. Nothing else has worked to date.
Very astute comment. The only knockout blow to the Leave movement would be a convincing result on the day of the referendum. It can't be achieved by any campaign interventions or pompous declarations of righteousness.
As you go through life the one thing you learn is that life is full of change. If you swim against it you fail, if you meekly accept change you will just jog along, but if you lead change you will succeed. I believe that we can lead change within the EU but I equally respect the view that you can also lead change outside the EU
Just a little condescending in tone there ...
I believe that the pace of change is increasing, and that requires ever more nimble leadership, which will be easier to achieve for the UK outside of the EU rather than inside, even if we were able to assume a leadership role within the EU, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, including Cameron's most recent efforts to build a coalition for reform.
Wow, a four line sentence. Perhaps I should seek a job in Brussels.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
You told us on the day of Obama's visit that it was all a splendid example of the brilliance of REMAIN's campaign.
Just shut up. You're simply embarrassing now.
Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, such as it was.
It really didn't mate. You asserting this point doesn't make it true.
You guys run the risk of only just winning the referendum if you carry on like this, but losing the argument.
And there's still the risk you might *actually* lose the whole thing. Period.
Can we hear some of your RemainRap?
I've no idea why you keep thinking I'm something to do with the Remain campaign. I'm a neutral observer, taking no part in this other than commenting on the politics.
Of course Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, that's why Leave went so utterly ballistic and counter-productively ad-hominem over it. Leave's principal, albeit rather vague, economic argument has been 'we will be able to sign favourable trade deals with the US and other important markets to compensate for the less favourable access to the Single Market'. That was always a very thin argument, but it sounded vaguely plausible. Not any more.
Kidding the youngsters is one thing, but people over a certain age have all been around the block. They have finely tuned bullshit monitors.
Even the young "they" (she / he / it doesn't like she or he, so wants to go by bizarrely "they" in the singular) didn't by his BS on LGBT stuff, when they (again in the singular) got to ask him about the discrimination of other "they"s (plural) in that multi-cultural soft soap fest.
I have to agree with SeanT, while I always love reading the below the line discussion (although rarely comment myself) - the above the line threads have lately abandoned any attempt at neutrality, especially the ones with no mention of betting [Such as those threads solely criticising campaign decisions without any data to justify it.]
What's the point of neutrality? Except to keep PB as a safe space for right-wing Tories. The website has the name Mike Smithson written at the top of every page. It's not the bloody BBC.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
They were expecting the phone polls to show Remain ahead, and the online polls neck and neck, which is where we're at.
As I've said countless times before, the campaign starts proper a week on Monday, all this is about framing the debate.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
You told us on the day of Obama's visit that it was all a splendid example of the brilliance of REMAIN's campaign.
Just shut up. You're simply embarrassing now.
Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, such as it was.
It really didn't mate. You asserting this point doesn't make it true.
You guys run the risk of only just winning the referendum if you carry on like this, but losing the argument.
And there's still the risk you might *actually* lose the whole thing. Period.
Can we hear some of your RemainRap?
I've no idea why you keep thinking I'm something to do with the Remain campaign. I'm a neutral observer, taking no part in this other than commenting on the politics.
Of course Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, that's why Leave went so utterly ballistic and counter-productively ad-hominem over it. Leave's principal, albeit rather vague, economic argument has been 'we will be able to sign favourable trade deals with the US and other important markets to compensate for the less favourable access to the Single Market'. That was always a very thin argument, but it sounded vaguely plausible. Not any more.
Obama's intervention simply didn't pass the bullshit test, though. America will prioritise a deal - as Cruz has written and Trump said [not sure about Clinton]. They'll push hard for great terms, and generally take advantage, as they always do, but they'll do a deal with us.
It may well be, given shy Leavers and Leavers greater propensity to vote, that Leave is much further ahead than the polls suggest. I think we need some guidance from A. Meeks ....
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
You told us on the day of Obama's visit that it was all a splendid example of the brilliance of REMAIN's campaign.
Just shut up. You're simply embarrassing now.
Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, such as it was.
It really didn't mate. You asserting this point doesn't make it true.
You guys run the risk of only just winning the referendum if you carry on like this, but losing the argument.
And there's still the risk you might *actually* lose the whole thing. Period.
Can we hear some of your RemainRap?
I've no idea why you keep thinking I'm something to do with the Remain campaign. I'm a neutral observer, taking no part in this other than commenting on the politics.
Of course Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, that's why Leave went so utterly ballistic and counter-productively ad-hominem over it. Leave's principal, albeit rather vague, economic argument has been 'we will be able to sign favourable trade deals with the US and other important markets'. That was always a very thin argument, but it sounded vaguely plausible. Not any more.
Philip Thompson, Robert Smithson, Richard Tyndall, myself, various commentators in the media, and countless others have explained to you why Obama's trade deal point is moot.
And we have done so repeatedly, on here, but you have a tin ear.
Obama said, if we Leave, there would be a US-UK deal at some point. He said there was "a queue", and it could take up to 10 years. And we have no such deal at the moment.
That's it. Without even getting into the specifics of the points he made *at all* - such as facts like Obama won't be in office in 8 months time, and that US policy will change as soon as the reality is we have left, and the fact they are simultaneously currently negotiating trade deals with dozens of much smaller countries, including New Zealand - that in no way, whatsoever, "destroyed Leave's economic case".
You can keep saying it till the cows come home. No-one believes you.
As you go through life the one thing you learn is that life is full of change. If you swim against it you fail, if you meekly accept change you will just jog along, but if you lead change you will succeed. I believe that we can lead change within the EU but I equally respect the view that you can also lead change outside the EU
Just a little condescending in tone there ...
I believe that the pace of change is increasing, and that requires ever more nimble leadership, which will be easier to achieve for the UK outside of the EU rather than inside, even if we were able to assume a leadership role within the EU, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, including Cameron's most recent efforts to build a coalition for reform.
Wow, a four line sentence. Perhaps I should seek a job in Brussels.
Do you get a vote in the EU referendum over there in MD?
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
I always say when I get things wrong. In this case, I wrote that there was likely to be a small move to Leave in the opinion polls, as a cost-free way of expressing disgruntlement at Obama's 'interference'. I'm sorry if my being right distresses you.
My judgement (2012, I think it was) that Osborne's macro-economic policy was near-perfectly judged has been quite resoundingly vindicated by events. I'm sorry if my being right on that point too distresses you.
Is the referendum going to plan for the Remain side? No, probably not. You are probably right that they would have expected to be doing better at this point, although I've no idea since I have nothing to do with the Remain campaign.
As for the final result, though: I think the winning band will be either 55%-60% or 60% to 65% Remain.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
They were expecting the phone polls to show Remain ahead, and the online polls neck and neck, which is where we're at.
As I've said countless times before, the campaign starts proper a week on Monday, all this is about framing the debate.
Except the Obama card has already been played, and HMG has already spent £9.3m on its propaganda drop. And still the polls are close, with a few Leave leads.
I expect a bloody and full-throated campaign from Remain from a week Monday, which will be highly aggressive and ruthless, but let's not pretend that Remain are where they wanted to be right now.
Thing is, if PROJECT FEAR doesn't work, where do you go? PROJECT TERRORISE? PROJECT THREATEN ALL LEAVE VOTERS WITH CLAW HAMMERS?
What?
Do you double down on FEAR? Or do you change tack? Questions for Mr Cameron.
I sense a VOW is coming.....
Going to be difficult to generate a "vow moment" given Cameron's non-renegotiation negotiation fiasco...
Difficult..but not impossible. The main problem will be to find a pro EU tabloid that'll lash up a crappy photoshop job for their front page. Not sure if the Mirror will want to put its head above the parapet.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
I always say when I get things wrong. In this case, I wrote that there was likely to be a small move to Leave. I'm sorry if my being right distresses you.
My judgement (2012, I think it was) that Osborne's macro-economic policy was near-perfectly judged has been quite resoundingly vindicated by events. I'm sorry if my being right on that point too distresses you.
Is the referendum going to plan for the Remain side? No, probably not. You are probably right that they would have expected to be doing better at this point, although I've no idea since I have nothing to do with the Remain campaign.
As for the final result, though: I think the winning band will be either 55%-60% or 60% to 65% Remain.
I think we can all agree based on the multiple polling, that Obama has pushed voters to Leave and UKIP.
Where's the evidence? Ed Is Crap is the bible around here, yet he gained more votes than the Conservatives, so can we all agree that voters found him appealing? Of course not. The reason he was crap is that confounding factors prevented him from exploiting the coalition as well as he should have done after Lib Dem collapse, omnishambles, etc. There are always confounding factors. What really matters is to think about things. My guess is that Obama made zero difference to vote intention today but will undermine the economic arguments which will be hashed and rehashed in the debate.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
I always say when I get things wrong. In this case, I wrote that there was likely to be a small move to Leave in the opinion polls, as a cost-free way of expressing disgruntlement at Obama's 'interference'. I'm sorry if my being right distresses you.
My judgement (2012, I think it was) that Osborne's macro-economic policy was near-perfectly judged has been quite resoundingly vindicated by events. I'm sorry if my being right on that point too distresses you.
Is the referendum going to plan for the Remain side? No, probably not. You are probably right that they would have expected to be doing better at this point, although I've no idea since I have nothing to do with the Remain campaign.
As for the final result, though: I think the winning band will be either 55%-60% or 60% to 65% Remain.
The winning percentage will probably be less than 55%. Anything else is wishful thinking.
That Fa-age or is Far-arrge bloke doing quite well in the polls.
I almost thought Cameron was making a clever allusion to his 'gaylord ponceyboots' moniker today in the HoC when he accused Farage of having a poncey name.
Odd, then, that you and many others obsess so much about what I say. You don't have to read my posts, let alone reply to them or post silly comments about things you erroneously think I've written.
That Fa-age or is Far-arrge bloke doing quite well in the polls.
I almost thought Cameron was making a clever allusion to his 'gaylord ponceyboots' moniker today in the HoC when he accused Farage of having a poncey name.
Well we know Dave is a regular reader between sessions of Candy Crush...Hi Dave....ain't looking so good this EU stuff for you is it.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
I always say when I get things wrong. In this case, I wrote that there was likely to be a small move to Leave in the opinion polls, as a cost-free way of expressing disgruntlement at Obama's 'interference'. I'm sorry if my being right distresses you.
My judgement (2012, I think it was) that Osborne's macro-economic policy was near-perfectly judged has been quite resoundingly vindicated by events. I'm sorry if my being right on that point too distresses you.
Is the referendum going to plan for the Remain side? No, probably not. You are probably right that they would have expected to be doing better at this point, although I've no idea since I have nothing to do with the Remain campaign.
As for the final result, though: I think the winning band will be either 55%-60% or 60% to 65% Remain.
Osborne's macroeconomic policy perfectly judged? What a crazy statement. He has missed virtually every target he has ever set for himself.
That Fa-age or is Far-arrge bloke doing quite well in the polls.
I almost thought Cameron was making a clever allusion to his 'gaylord ponceyboots' moniker today in the HoC when he accused Farage of having a poncey name.
More garbage in garbage out. Applying statistics to single, one-off events is just unscientific. All such events resolve to 0 or 1, and no statistical prediction (other than 0 or 1) can ever be proved or disproved.
Odds for betting make sense, because it is not the event to which the odds apply, but to the many bettors and individual bets.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
They were expecting the phone polls to show Remain ahead, and the online polls neck and neck, which is where we're at.
As I've said countless times before, the campaign starts proper a week on Monday, all this is about framing the debate.
This is total bullshit. I know people in politics, too. REMAIN expected to be streets ahead at this point. They thought there might be a narrowing during the campaign, as in Sindyref, but nothing too worrying.
They had absolutely no expectation they'd be close to level pegging, and with some major pollsters showing them BEHIND after week 1. If they had anticipated this, Cameron would clearly have never called the vote. He'd have found some excuse. A longer negotiation with Brussels. Some crisis or other.
What has thrown Dave and Remain is not the polls, they were expecting maybe 70 Tory MPs and from the cabinet IDS and Grayling to back Leave.
They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
I always say when I get things wrong. In this case, I wrote that there was likely to be a small move to Leave in the opinion polls, as a cost-free way of expressing disgruntlement at Obama's 'interference'. I'm sorry if my being right distresses you.
My judgement (2012, I think it was) that Osborne's macro-economic policy was near-perfectly judged has been quite resoundingly vindicated by events. I'm sorry if my being right on that point too distresses you.
Is the referendum going to plan for the Remain side? No, probably not. You are probably right that they would have expected to be doing better at this point, although I've no idea since I have nothing to do with the Remain campaign.
As for the final result, though: I think the winning band will be either 55%-60% or 60% to 65% Remain.
Osborne's macroeconomic policy perfectly judged? What a crazy statement. He has missed virtually every target he has ever set for himself.
What has thrown Dave and Remain is not the polls, they were expecting maybe 70 Tory MPs and from the cabinet IDS and Grayling to back Leave.
They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
Really? Well maybe that ham-faced idiot of a PM should have done what he said he would do and come back with a renegotiation agreement that wasn't laughable. It is an entirely self-inflicted blunder, it serves him right if he can't command much support anymore.
Thing is, if PROJECT FEAR doesn't work, where do you go? PROJECT TERRORISE? PROJECT THREATEN ALL LEAVE VOTERS WITH CLAW HAMMERS?
What?
Do you double down on FEAR? Or do you change tack? Questions for Mr Cameron.
Two points. This is point 1.
During World War II, the allied forces were beset by generals trying to land a knockout blow, with Montgomery and Patton arguing with each other. This process cumulated in Operation Market Garden, a clever plan which (if all the pieces fell in the place) would hve won the war quickly. Of course it didn't work and was the most almighty fuckup. Bradley (or was it Eisenhower, I forget) abandoned all thoughts of knockout blows and operated on a broad front, gradually and painstakingly rolling up the German forces inch by bloody inch across the whole of Western Europe. This approach won the war.
If REMAIN are to win (and they may not), this is the approach they must adopt. Nothing else has worked to date.
I don't think that a very sound example. The allies simply chose the wrong General for the knockout blow, and the wrong place. Patton had demonstrated in Sicily his mastery of combined arms mobile warfare, and once again in the breakout from Normandy. Monty was a set piece planner, such as El Alamein and again at D day itself. He was not good at mobile warfare. Knockout blows require an element of boldness and risk that he was never comfortable with.
I think that the value bet is on Leave at 3.4, but also on Remain on 40-44% at 19, on Betfair. I think there is less value on Remain 60-65%, but possibly still some. The errors inherent in the polls do not nessecarily cancel each other out, so I see a wide statistical confidence interval, though it is rare for polls to publish these, and the value at both ends of the scale.
I have to agree with SeanT, while I always love reading the below the line discussion (although rarely comment myself) - the above the line threads have lately abandoned any attempt at neutrality, especially the ones with no mention of betting [Such as those threads solely criticising campaign decisions without any data to justify it.]
What's the point of neutrality? Except to keep PB as a safe space for right-wing Tories. The website has the name Mike Smithson written at the top of every page. It's not the bloody BBC.
Because neutrality is absolutely CRUCIAL on a website dedicated to political BETTING.
Previously Mike Smithson has been absolutely brilliant at this, hence the success of the site. It's a place for all to come and talk, whatever their beliefs, knowing that the betting side of things keeps the balance. Everyone wants to make a buck, so all are allowed to talk, and give their opinion, and information from any source is valued.
If you read the site recently, and not the comments BLT, you'd presume REMAIN was ahead by 20-30 points. That's bad. It just is. I am sure things will improve, tho.
Given that yesterday's post was titled "The IN lead drops by 4%", this complaint is a literary fiction.
What is actually happening is that some of the lead articles are not to the taste of most contributors to PB comments, who are getting understandably upset about being on the losing side of a national vote for the first time since 2005. Looking at the comments realistically, they contain almost no voices to the left of the late coalition and the upset reaction to the referendum is because PB comments are meaningfully divided about politics, in place of the usual consensus. And again realistically, the ratio of political betting discussion to centre-right retweets and train/Roman empire chat is pretty low. A rather simpler explanation than inferring 30 per cent leads from articles about 4 per cent drops.
What has thrown Dave and Remain is not the polls, they were expecting maybe 70 Tory MPs and from the cabinet IDS and Grayling to back Leave.
They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
Really? Well maybe that ham-faced idiot of a PM should have done what he said he would do and come back with a renegotiation agreement that wasn't laughable. It is an entirely self-inflicted blunder, it serves him right if he can't command much support anymore.
Indeed. Dave had numerous options available to him such as saying the deal was crap and campaigning to leave, saying the deal is crap but he will keep trying for something better, etc. He brought this all on himself.
I have to agree with SeanT, while I always love reading the below the line discussion (although rarely comment myself) - the above the line threads have lately abandoned any attempt at neutrality, especially the ones with no mention of betting [Such as those threads solely criticising campaign decisions without any data to justify it.]
What's the point of neutrality? Except to keep PB as a safe space for right-wing Tories. The website has the name Mike Smithson written at the top of every page. It's not the bloody BBC.
Because neutrality is absolutely CRUCIAL on a website dedicated to political BETTING.
Previously Mike Smithson has been absolutely brilliant at this, hence the success of the site. It's a place for all to come and talk, whatever their beliefs, knowing that the betting side of things keeps the balance. Everyone wants to make a buck, so all are allowed to talk, and give their opinion, and information from any source is valued.
If you read the site recently, and not the comments BLT, you'd presume REMAIN was ahead by 20-30 points. That's bad. It just is. I am sure things will improve, tho.
Given that yesterday's post was titled "The IN lead drops by 4%", this complaint is a literary fiction.
What is actually happening is that some of the lead articles are not to the taste of most contributors to PB comments, who are getting understandably upset about being on the losing side of a national vote for the first time since 2005. Looking at the comments realistically, they contain almost no voices to the left of the late coalition and the upset reaction to the referendum is because PB comments are meaningfully divided about politics, in place of the usual consensus. And again realistically, the ratio of political betting discussion to centre-right retweets and train/Roman empire chat is pretty low. A rather simpler explanation than inferring 30 per cent leads from articles about 4 per cent drops.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
They were expecting the phone polls to show Remain ahead, and the online polls neck and neck, which is where we're at.
As I've said countless times before, the campaign starts proper a week on Monday, all this is about framing the debate.
This is total bullshit. I know people in politics, too. REMAIN expected to be streets ahead at this point. They thought there might be a narrowing during the campaign, as in Sindyref, but nothing too worrying.
They had absolutely no expectation they'd be close to level pegging, and with some major pollsters showing them BEHIND after week 1. If they had anticipated this, Cameron would clearly have never called the vote. He'd have found some excuse. A longer negotiation with Brussels. Some crisis or other.
What has thrown Dave and Remain is not the polls, they were expecting maybe 70 Tory MPs and from the cabinet IDS and Grayling to back Leave.
They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
Some of us have been pointing out for a while that Leave supporters are more passionate, and from the demographic that votes.
The only conclusion from the last batch of polls, is that contrary to the hallucinations of Meeks & Nabavi, the REMAIN camp has had a shit opening week, overplaying their hand and openly bullying the British people.
As some of us suggested.
Some of us predicted a small move to Leave, yes, explained exactly why it was likely to happen, and why it was a good opportunity to bet on the Remain 60% to 65% band.
It would be nice if once, just once, just one single time, you showed a little humility and said Ooops, yes I got this badly wrong. But you never do, not when it comes to Cameron, Osborne and the EU.
Have you ever apologised for your near-perfect Chancellor remarks?
It demeans you. We all get things wrong. So here's a hint. Just admit this referendum isn't going quite to plan. Because it isn't. Whatever REMAIN's precious "grid" was or is, they really did not expect ICM to be showing leads for LEAVE, after the first week.
They were expecting the phone polls to show Remain ahead, and the online polls neck and neck, which is where we're at.
As I've said countless times before, the campaign starts proper a week on Monday, all this is about framing the debate.
This is total bullshit. I know people in politics, too. REMAIN expected to be streets ahead at this point. They thought there might be a narrowing during the campaign, as in Sindyref, but nothing too worrying.
They had absolutely no expectation they'd be close to level pegging, and with some major pollsters showing them BEHIND after week 1. If they had anticipated this, Cameron would clearly have never called the vote. He'd have found some excuse. A longer negotiation with Brussels. Some crisis or other.
What has thrown Dave and Remain is not the polls, they were expecting maybe 70 Tory MPs and from the cabinet IDS and Grayling to back Leave. They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
When a Leader is that much out of touch with their party, the end is up for the Leader and those around him.
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
Sean, absolutely agree on the visceral comments.
If you have not yet read it, I highly recommend the book "How Risky is it Really" by Ropeik. He deals with four aspects of how we assess risks and process information - brain structure and chemistry; decision heuristics in imperfect information; personality and risk profile; and culture and peer pressure factors. The first three factors mean that most of our world view is formed subconsciously by the non-rational brain, especially the hyper-visceral amygdala.
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
If the Tory Remainers seriously thought they were going to walk this referendum then they are utter morons. Anyone with half a brain could have told them it would be too close to call. Not understanding this shows Corbynesque levels of political judgement. And then on the other side you've got the increasingly ridiculous Boris, IDS, Patel, Grayling et al. God help us all!!
What has thrown Dave and Remain is not the polls, they were expecting maybe 70 Tory MPs and from the cabinet IDS and Grayling to back Leave.
They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
Really? Well maybe that ham-faced idiot of a PM should have done what he said he would do and come back with a renegotiation agreement that wasn't laughable. It is an entirely self-inflicted blunder, it serves him right if he can't command much support anymore.
Indeed. Dave had numerous options available to him such as saying the deal was crap and campaigning to leave, saying the deal is crap but he will keep trying for something better, etc. He brought this all on himself.
Now here's a thing. I was with a group of very switched on US hedge fund guys today who were very keen indeed to explore the notion that a LEAVE vote might somehow be ignored by the government/parliament. I wonder where they could have got that idea.
If the Tory Remainers seriously thought they were going to walk this referendum then they are utter morons. Anyone with half a brain could have told them it would be too close to call. Not understanding this shows Corbynesque levels of political judgement. And then on the other side you've got the increasingly ridiculous Boris, IDS, Patel, Grayling et al. God help us all!!
It's likely that Labour voters in many parts of the country will split roughly 50/50, especially outside the big cities. Cameron should have factored that into his calculations.
She is back to 2009 levels or a point below. It seems 2013 was a blip in the long-term decline of the Union parties. Other changes since 2009: SPD -1, Left -3, Greens +2; FDP -7, AFD +12. (though it was an unusually good year for the FDP)
What has thrown Dave and Remain is not the polls, they were expecting maybe 70 Tory MPs and from the cabinet IDS and Grayling to back Leave.
They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
Really? Well maybe that ham-faced idiot of a PM should have done what he said he would do and come back with a renegotiation agreement that wasn't laughable. It is an entirely self-inflicted blunder, it serves him right if he can't command much support anymore.
Losing two cabinet colleagues and half your MPs is crap Party management
Yes, much truth there. As I said before, europhiles do not understand the eurosceptic mindset. They don't realise this is VISCERAL for many people: Nationhood. Sovereignty. Betrayal. For europhiles it's just about money and hoover laws and boring stuff. Why the fuss.
The same argument applies in reverse, as you're articulated in the past. You can make a visceral argument in favour of Europe and against the anachronistic and legalistic way of defining sovereignty.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
The EU as configured is in no shape to make the reforms and decisions needed to make Europe competitive again in anywhere near the timeframes needed. And there is nothing the UK can do to change that, no matter how close we try to shove ourselves towards the centre. Just look at reactions to Macron's laughable efforts to nudge the French economy away from suicide.
If the Tory Remainers seriously thought they were going to walk this referendum then they are utter morons. Anyone with half a brain could have told them it would be too close to call. Not understanding this shows Corbynesque levels of political judgement. And then on the other side you've got the increasingly ridiculous Boris, IDS, Patel, Grayling et al. God help us all!!
It's likely that Labour voters in many parts of the country will split roughly 50/50, especially outside the big cities. Cameron should have factored that into his calculations.
It's increasingly clear that the only calculation Dave made was about the bone he needed to throw to the Tory right back in 2012. Labour voters were automatically assumed to be pro-Remain. I suspect most who vote will be. But a hell of a lot won't turnout. This is not their argument.
Patrick Kidd Turns out that Ian Botham is more influential than Barack Obama after all https://t.co/sRZ8BFvcix
He clearly appeals to the demographic that believes England is an island :-)
Trying to work out if you are implying he appeals to everyone or just Little Englanders. (And yes, I get that England is not, per se, an island, but rather located on one)
On the matter of balance in this website's leading articles, I had a look at the articles since my little item on the 18th April which can be assessed as "anti REMAIN" because it suggested a mistake by Cameron in his tactics.
Since that article, on the subject of the referendum IMHO there were:- 3 articles proLEAVE/antiREMAIN, 5 articles neutral, 8 articles antiLEAVE/proREMAIN
During that period the evidence in recent polls is that LEAVE has improved vs REMAIN. Does this website have to be balanced? The answer is of course No. Do LEAVE supporters have some justification to complain about it? The answer is Yes. I therefore leave the main authors to think about this.
How about a series of articles digging deep into recent polls to see how valid the weightings and samples they are now using compared to the findings from the review of GE2016? Now that would add some real value to the website compared to what we can read elsewhere.
Comments
Personally, I do not trust the polls on this. Online polls are holed under the waterline by biased panels, and phone polls are only marginally better. This referendum has no recent precedent, past voting weighting and turnout are very uncertain bits of hocus pocus to come up with plausible results. My tea leaves are nearly as valid.
My advice is to play to the whistle, not watch the polls, and applies to both sides.
Not looking good for the Posh Boys is it?
Mr Meeks would also point out he thought Obama's intervention might backfire.
We've all written pieces why Leave might win, unfortunately people seem to forget that.
During World War II, the allied forces were beset by generals trying to land a knockout blow, with Montgomery and Patton arguing with each other. This process cumulated in Operation Market Garden, a clever plan which (if all the pieces fell in the place) would hve won the war quickly. Of course it didn't work and was the most almighty fuckup. Bradley (or was it Eisenhower, I forget) abandoned all thoughts of knockout blows and operated on a broad front, gradually and painstakingly rolling up the German forces inch by bloody inch across the whole of Western Europe. This approach won the war.
If REMAIN are to win (and they may not), this is the approach they must adopt. Nothing else has worked to date.
Edit: As for what the Remain side does now, I expect they will continue doing pretty much what they have done so, repeating the same message as nauseam so that it eventually trickles through to the unengaged. The one change they need to make is to find a counter to Leave's mendacious but effective NHS line. Ideally they'd also try to neutralise the immigration argument (Leave's strongest suit, as Alastair rightly pointed out earlier), but that's very tricky one, and they might prefer just to change the subject.
They tried Cancer yesterday: "Oncologists warn against Brexit"
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/862441
Next...
Your pet will die?
Almost there: "Brexit would be disastrous for Britain’s farm animals"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/27/brexit-disastrous-britains-farm-animals-eu-laws-cruel
People who want "out" have been smeared as racist, xenaphobic, "Little Englander" "closet racists" "fruitcakes" etc...
If you were a 10/10 Tory or Labour voter but wanted to leave the EU would you actually admit that to a pollster knowing the stigma that's attached to being a "leaver"?
I think you'd be inclined to lie, especially to phone pollsters...
Con 30 (-1)
Lab 33 (-1)
UKIP 20 (+3)
LD 6 (-2)
You guys run the risk of only just winning the referendum if you carry on like this, but losing the argument.
And there's still the risk you might *actually* lose the whole thing. Period.
Can we hear some of your RemainRap?
Ángel Gurría of the OECD let a kitten out of the bag today.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/oecd-says-brexit-would-slash-immigration-to-a-quarter-of-todays-levels/
I once attended a lecture given by senior army personnel at the two-thirds stage of the Afghan war: all blazers and ties, incredible posture: those people don't walk they stride, it's like watching machines moving. Conflict statistics is one of the more challenging sides of the business: it's horribly dangerous but can produce remarkable results (the move from regimental caps to steel helmets being the classic). It became obvious during the lecture that they didn't think they were going to win: the tone was melancholic, resigned, "what to do", all the sentences trailed off. There comes a point in a conflict where one is losing but can still win: the resources and ability is still there, but people start doing cost-benefit analyses and what seemed easy is now so difficult, and so, and so, and so... At this point the critical decision is whether to keep going or look for excuses to fail. It will be fascinating to see which approach REMAIN will adopt in the days ahead.
Perhaps you could get in touch and tell them to, y'know, get a bit of a grip? Like.. not destroy their own party for a 'European Union' that no-one likes, not even the ones who are reluctantly voting to stay in it?
Seriously, TSE. Have a word.
Of course Obama's intervention destroyed Leave's economic case, that's why Leave went so utterly ballistic and counter-productively ad-hominem over it. Leave's principal, albeit rather vague, economic argument has been 'we will be able to sign favourable trade deals with the US and other important markets to compensate for the less favourable access to the Single Market'. That was always a very thin argument, but it sounded vaguely plausible. Not any more.
I believe that the pace of change is increasing, and that requires ever more nimble leadership, which will be easier to achieve for the UK outside of the EU rather than inside, even if we were able to assume a leadership role within the EU, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, including Cameron's most recent efforts to build a coalition for reform.
Wow, a four line sentence. Perhaps I should seek a job in Brussels.
The website has the name Mike Smithson written at the top of every page. It's not the bloody BBC.
As I've said countless times before, the campaign starts proper a week on Monday, all this is about framing the debate.
Turning to Indiana and the GOP:
https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/725438147425886208
We must be due another Meeks "why LEAVE is failing" article tomorrow?
Innocent face
And we have done so repeatedly, on here, but you have a tin ear.
Obama said, if we Leave, there would be a US-UK deal at some point. He said there was "a queue", and it could take up to 10 years. And we have no such deal at the moment.
That's it. Without even getting into the specifics of the points he made *at all* - such as facts like Obama won't be in office in 8 months time, and that US policy will change as soon as the reality is we have left, and the fact they are simultaneously currently negotiating trade deals with dozens of much smaller countries, including New Zealand - that in no way, whatsoever, "destroyed Leave's economic case".
You can keep saying it till the cows come home. No-one believes you.
My judgement (2012, I think it was) that Osborne's macro-economic policy was near-perfectly judged has been quite resoundingly vindicated by events. I'm sorry if my being right on that point too distresses you.
Is the referendum going to plan for the Remain side? No, probably not. You are probably right that they would have expected to be doing better at this point, although I've no idea since I have nothing to do with the Remain campaign.
As for the final result, though: I think the winning band will be either 55%-60% or 60% to 65% Remain.
I expect a bloody and full-throated campaign from Remain from a week Monday, which will be highly aggressive and ruthless, but let's not pretend that Remain are where they wanted to be right now.
The main problem will be to find a pro EU tabloid that'll lash up a crappy photoshop job for their front page. Not sure if the Mirror will want to put its head above the parapet.
Night.
Ed Is Crap is the bible around here, yet he gained more votes than the Conservatives, so can we all agree that voters found him appealing? Of course not. The reason he was crap is that confounding factors prevented him from exploiting the coalition as well as he should have done after Lib Dem collapse, omnishambles, etc. There are always confounding factors. What really matters is to think about things. My guess is that Obama made zero difference to vote intention today but will undermine the economic arguments which will be hashed and rehashed in the debate.
Cam loves us really!
Odds for betting make sense, because it is not the event to which the odds apply, but to the many bettors and individual bets.
They weren't expecting nearly half the Party backing Leave as well as Boris and Gove on Leave too.
I think that the value bet is on Leave at 3.4, but also on Remain on 40-44% at 19, on Betfair. I think there is less value on Remain 60-65%, but possibly still some. The errors inherent in the polls do not nessecarily cancel each other out, so I see a wide statistical confidence interval, though it is rare for polls to publish these, and the value at both ends of the scale.
What is actually happening is that some of the lead articles are not to the taste of most contributors to PB comments, who are getting understandably upset about being on the losing side of a national vote for the first time since 2005. Looking at the comments realistically, they contain almost no voices to the left of the late coalition and the upset reaction to the referendum is because PB comments are meaningfully divided about politics, in place of the usual consensus. And again realistically, the ratio of political betting discussion to centre-right retweets and train/Roman empire chat is pretty low. A rather simpler explanation than inferring 30 per cent leads from articles about 4 per cent drops.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Turns out that Ian Botham is more influential than Barack Obama after all https://t.co/sRZ8BFvcix
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/31/apathy-and-the-older-voters-might-be-the-key-for-out-winning-the-referendum/
If you have not yet read it, I highly recommend the book "How Risky is it Really" by Ropeik. He deals with four aspects of how we assess risks and process information - brain structure and chemistry; decision heuristics in imperfect information; personality and risk profile; and culture and peer pressure factors. The first three factors mean that most of our world view is formed subconsciously by the non-rational brain, especially the hyper-visceral amygdala.
It is an eminently readable book, too.
One hundred years ago Europe was collectively going mad tearing itself to pieces and surrendering its global leadership role. Subsequently the UK came out of WWII as the only moral victor which blinded us to how diminished we were and the importance of Making Europe Great Again. That mission is just as important today and as one of the great nations of Europe we shouldn't ever stand aside and think that we're better off leaving them to it.
Who sees Cameron and his chums in that light?
Since that article, on the subject of the referendum IMHO there were:-
3 articles proLEAVE/antiREMAIN, 5 articles neutral, 8 articles antiLEAVE/proREMAIN
During that period the evidence in recent polls is that LEAVE has improved vs REMAIN.
Does this website have to be balanced? The answer is of course No. Do LEAVE supporters have some justification to complain about it? The answer is Yes. I therefore leave the main authors to think about this.
How about a series of articles digging deep into recent polls to see how valid the weightings and samples they are now using compared to the findings from the review of GE2016? Now that would add some real value to the website compared to what we can read elsewhere.