Well Putin sees him as a role model, looks like Eurovision has managed to annoy the biggest nation in the competition and the newest member
Eurovision is supposed to be apolitical.
Has it ever been so though? It's not worth getting concerned about.
There was a time that eurovision was about music, before it gradually became all about politics, we can trace the moment to the years Britain and other big european countries started dropping in the scores.
Russia's song/performance was better than Ukraine's dreary entry, IMO.
I'm watching several hours behind and only just started, but Russia often have good entries in recent years I think - I thought they should have won a few years back when the Austrians won, but that was at the beginning of the Ukraine trouble, and the entry was even booed.
Boris and Hitler. Is this another project fear game changer for REMAIN that we read about night after night after night? FFS how many game changers positive for REMAIN can there be in face of the indicators that are good for LEAVE?
Remain have seen Boris' trust figures on Europe so they're trashing him.
Also seems (to me) to be a fall-back strategy to ensure Boris doesn't become Cameron's successor.
Exactly correct. From the same people that cried foul when Leave people did the sane in reverse to Cameron.
Boris is an idiot in using the Hitler analogy, but it is nowhere near as dishonest as the "official treaury analysis" they are claiming the £4,300 is. Actually that number is not in the Treasury document but was a back of the envelope calculation by Osborne on top of it. The sheer dishonesty of dividing a 2030 difference by 2015 households is obvious, yet it is the centre of the Remain campaign.
Have you actually looked at the report? The £4,300 figure is mentioned 8 times in the main body of it, as well as in Osborne's foreword. Also, as far as I can tell, the 2030 difference is not divided by 2015 households. It looks, to me, as though the GDP per capita difference has been calculated using the estimated population for 2030, and has then been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44.
Why are people saying that the 2015 household figure has been used? What evidence is there for this?
Staging his Sunday Paper silly statement at the day of another bizarre and humiliating Eurovision contest.
Why not ?
After all, most people tomorrow will be talking about how Australia was robbed by those pesky europeans and how on earth Poland came from dead stone last up to there, while we where buried as usual. Instead of Boris.
Boris and Hitler. Is this another project fear game changer for REMAIN that we read about night after night after night? FFS how many game changers positive for REMAIN can there be in face of the indicators that are good for LEAVE?
Remain have seen Boris' trust figures on Europe so they're trashing him.
Also seems (to me) to be a fall-back strategy to ensure Boris doesn't become Cameron's successor.
Boris and Hitler. Is this another project fear game changer for REMAIN that we read about night after night after night? FFS how many game changers positive for REMAIN can there be in face of the indicators that are good for LEAVE?
Remain have seen Boris' trust figures on Europe so they're trashing him. Also seems (to me) to be a fall-back strategy to ensure Boris doesn't become Cameron's successor.
Woo, finally managed to get a reference to the Punic Wars into the morning thread
I am frankly amazed if that has never been the case before.
With my shaky grasp of ancient history (and for me that includes the early 90s as I was too young to remember it) I'm thinking Carthage and Rome are both wings of the Tory party fighting for control of the Party (Mediterranean world) through the EURef, hence why it is led by similar folk on both sides in the same way they were both republican oligarchies. The first punic war was 20 years ago when the pro-EU crowd won out but it didn't really settle matters, the second punic war is this campaign, with Remain (Rome) seemingly being kicked ten ways from sunday and losing ground everywhere in their heartland at least as incompetent leaders consumed with their own politics face off against much more able Leave commanders, but Remain still having enough factors in their favour, including wins in other areas (other parties) to win the day and crush Leave. The third punic war will be the aftermath of a Remain win, as they oppress and mistreat Leavers to the point where eventually all traces will be expunged from the party.
I shall be disappointed if instead it's just a reference of Boris being like a roman consul or something.
Looks like a big labour win in tooting majority 4-5k i think.
I wonder if anyone will even pretend to get excited about the prospect of Labour losing - no-one kicked up a fuss with the last two by-elections, but this one technically looks closer on paper, even if it seems highly improbable to say the least they could get any closer to taking it right now.
Woo, finally managed to get a reference to the Punic Wars into the morning thread
I am frankly amazed if that has never been the case before.
With my shaky grasp of ancient history (and for me that includes the early 90s as I was too young to remember it) I'm thinking Carthage and Rome are both wings of the Tory party fighting for control of the Party (Mediterranean world) through the EURef, hence why it is led by similar folk on both sides in the same way they were both republican oligarchies. The first punic war was 20 years ago when the pro-EU crowd won out but it didn't really settle matters, the second punic war is this campaign, with Remain (Rome) seemingly being kicked ten ways from sunday and losing ground everywhere in their heartland at least as incompetent leaders consumed with their own politics face off against much more able Leave commanders, but Remain still having enough factors in their favour, including wins in other areas (other parties) to win the day and crush Leave. The third punic war will be the aftermath of a Remain win, as they oppress and mistreat Leavers to the point where eventually all traces will be expunged from the party.
I shall be disappointed if instead it's just a reference of Boris being like a roman consul or something.
I've decided to remove my gratuitous insult at Hannibal but keep in the general Punic Wars reference.
Boris and Hitler. Is this another project fear game changer for REMAIN that we read about night after night after night? FFS how many game changers positive for REMAIN can there be in face of the indicators that are good for LEAVE?
Remain have seen Boris' trust figures on Europe so they're trashing him.
Also seems (to me) to be a fall-back strategy to ensure Boris doesn't become Cameron's successor.
Exactly correct. From the same people that cried foul when Leave people did the sane in reverse to Cameron.
Boris is an idiot in using the Hitler analogy, but it is nowhere near as dishonest as the "official treaury analysis" they are claiming the £4,300 is. Actually that number is not in the Treasury document but was a back of the envelope calculation by Osborne on top of it. The sheer dishonesty of dividing a 2030 difference by 2015 households is obvious, yet it is the centre of the Remain campaign.
Have you actually looked at the report? The £4,300 figure is mentioned 8 times in the main body of it, as well as in Osborne's foreword. Also, as far as I can tell, the 2030 difference is not divided by 2015 households. It looks, to me, as though the GDP per capita difference has been calculated using the estimated population for 2030, and has then been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44.
Why are people saying that the 2015 household figure has been used? What evidence is there for this?
"Downing Street has been told by “remain” pollsters that they are 8-10 points ahead despite most polls showing a dead heat, because the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach."
The future of the House of Lords would be called into question if ministers press ahead with plans to curtail its powers, the Lord Speaker has said. Baroness D'Souza said the Lords "should be free to scrutinise, to question and to hold the government to account".
A review of the Lords was launched after it blocked government plans to cut tax credits in October, to the anger of Conservative ministers. But Baroness D'Souza said limiting it would "question what it is there for".
During the last parliamentary session, the Lords inflicted 60 defeats on the government, including several changes to the housing bill last week. In return ministers have been clear they are looking into ways of making that harder.The review, was conducted by Lord Strathclyde.
"Downing Street has been told by “remain” pollsters that they are 8-10 points ahead despite most polls showing a dead heat, because the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach."
We shall see, although anyone can tell them that if they like. Not that I think Remain's tactics will prove effective, necessarily, but if they have been told that it's clear they aren't being complacent about it though, given their efforts.
The more people and organisations made into lepers because they depart from the establishment line the better in my book. If Boris starts to get helpings of what has been meted out to Nigel and UKIP, I'm glad. He will quickly realise there's a real rottenness at the top of our politics that needs rooting out.
"Downing Street has been told by “remain” pollsters that they are 8-10 points ahead despite most polls showing a dead heat, because the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach."
So, the young don't have mobile phone surgically attached to them?
I think this is wishful thinking. It is surely the oldies to are least likely to answer the phone and be online.
The future of the House of Lords would be called into question if ministers press ahead with plans to curtail its powers, the Lord Speaker has said. Baroness D'Souza said the Lords "should be free to scrutinise, to question and to hold the government to account".
A review of the Lords was launched after it blocked government plans to cut tax credits in October, to the anger of Conservative ministers. But Baroness D'Souza said limiting it would "question what it is there for".
During the last parliamentary session, the Lords inflicted 60 defeats on the government, including several changes to the housing bill last week. In return ministers have been clear they are looking into ways of making that harder.The review, was conducted by Lord Strathclyde.
I'd heard it hypothesised that despite decrying the number of defeats, the government was letting it pass so long as, in the end, the big stuff gets through, allowing the opposition to claim victory while preventing them from needing to go for the nuclear option and appoint yet another 100 more tory peers. Not sure I buy that theory personally, I feel there's been too many defeats for a government to blithely accept.
"Downing Street has been told by “remain” pollsters that they are 8-10 points ahead despite most polls showing a dead heat, because the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach."
The future of the House of Lords would be called into question if ministers press ahead with plans to curtail its powers, the Lord Speaker has said. Baroness D'Souza said the Lords "should be free to scrutinise, to question and to hold the government to account".
A review of the Lords was launched after it blocked government plans to cut tax credits in October, to the anger of Conservative ministers. But Baroness D'Souza said limiting it would "question what it is there for".
During the last parliamentary session, the Lords inflicted 60 defeats on the government, including several changes to the housing bill last week. In return ministers have been clear they are looking into ways of making that harder.The review, was conducted by Lord Strathclyde.
"Downing Street has been told by “remain” pollsters that they are 8-10 points ahead despite most polls showing a dead heat, because the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach."
I never really had the Islington elite down as Survivalist mountain men....
I've had a brainfart, does photosynthesis help seeds grow?
No. Seeds don't have leaves. You need moisture and warmth possibly after cold though depending on the seed.
Once they are seedlings then yes.
Cheers, need to edit the morning thread now.
I was more a physicist, not really interested in the other sciences.
Physics is the only decent science.
So was I, but alas not a forgetful one so remember bits of other sciences.
My A level Physics teacher told me to always go back to first principles which is why I rip apart rubbish like the treasury report and spot its first principle errors.
Boris and Hitler. Is this another project fear game changer for REMAIN that we read about night after night after night? FFS how many game changers positive for REMAIN can there be in face of the indicators that are good for LEAVE?
Remain have seen Boris' trust figures on Europe so they're trashing him.
Also seems (to me) to be a fall-back strategy to ensure Boris doesn't become Cameron's successor.
Exactly correct. From the same people that cried foul when Leave people did the sane in reverse to Cameron.
Boris is an idiot in using the Hitler analogy, but it is nowhere near as dishonest as the "official treaury analysis" they are claiming the £4,300 is. Actually that number is not in the Treasury document but was a back of the envelope calculation by Osborne on top of it. The sheer dishonesty of dividing a 2030 difference by 2015 households is obvious, yet it is the centre of the Remain campaign.
Have you actually looked at the report? The £4,300 figure is mentioned 8 times in the main body of it, as well as in Osborne's foreword. Also, as far as I can tell, the 2030 difference is not divided by 2015 households. It looks, to me, as though the GDP per capita difference has been calculated using the estimated population for 2030, and has then been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44.
Why are people saying that the 2015 household figure has been used? What evidence is there for this?
Well, I've not actually been able to find any indication for what you say.
All the figures in the report are calculated to give a difference in GDP per capita - £1,800 in the case of the "Canada" scenario - and then appear to have been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44, before being rounded to the nearest £100. The report doesn't appear to make any assumptions on the number of households at all. It assumes, based on OBR figures, that the population in 2030 will be 71.4m (regardless of Brexit or not), and that the average household size will be 2.44
You state in your blog that "First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030." Where are you getting these figures from?
I've had a brainfart, does photosynthesis help seeds grow?
No. Seeds don't have leaves. You need moisture and warmth possibly after cold though depending on the seed.
Once they are seedlings then yes.
Cheers, need to edit the morning thread now.
I was more a physicist, not really interested in the other sciences.
Physics is the only decent science.
I was once a physicist - my PhD was in magnetohydrodynamic equilibria in fusion plasmas - long time ago now. I still do a bit a A-level tutoring though.
"Downing Street has been told by “remain” pollsters that they are 8-10 points ahead despite most polls showing a dead heat, because the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach."
" the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach"
But the most pro-EU voters are Lib Dems and younger ones. It is the Conservative leaning 55+ that are they hardest to reach and they lean to LEAVE.
Not something I'd have said, but perhaps the polling is telling Leave that it'd work. Certainly provides for much amusing debate whatever the case. Dave's WAR!!! is getting rebutted...
@kle4 was getting bored and wanted some Hitler - and here it is
"Downing Street has been told by “remain” pollsters that they are 8-10 points ahead despite most polls showing a dead heat, because the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach."
" the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach"
But the most pro-EU voters are Lib Dems and younger ones. It is the Conservative leaning 55+ that are they hardest to reach and they lean to LEAVE.
The argument is probably the former have cellphones, the latter landlines but I cannot see much difference really
I see The new Fifa is behaving just like the old Fifa, dismissing criticism as baseless. Heck, maybe they'll even be right, the laws of probability suggest they have to be eventually,
The more people and organisations made into lepers because they depart from the establishment line the better in my book. If Boris starts to get helpings of what has been meted out to Nigel and UKIP, I'm glad. He will quickly realise there's a real rottenness at the top of our politics that needs rooting out.
Didn't he compare Kippers to guys who had their genitals ripped off by vacuum cleaners?
Have you actually looked at the report? The £4,300 figure is mentioned 8 times in the main body of it, as well as in Osborne's foreword. Also, as far as I can tell, the 2030 difference is not divided by 2015 households. It looks, to me, as though the GDP per capita difference has been calculated using the estimated population for 2030, and has then been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44.
Why are people saying that the 2015 household figure has been used? What evidence is there for this?
Well, I've not actually been able to find any indication for what you say.
All the figures in the report are calculated to give a difference in GDP per capita - £1,800 in the case of the "Canada" scenario - and then appear to have been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44, before being rounded to the nearest £100. The report doesn't appear to make any assumptions on the number of households at all. It assumes, based on OBR figures, that the population in 2030 will be 71.4m (regardless of Brexit or not), and that the average household size will be 2.44
You state in your blog that "First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030." Where are you getting these figures from?
My figures come from reading reports from people who allegedly have read it, however as the numbers seemed to add up and work I had assumed they were correct.
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion 2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074. leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get remain £79322 Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
Have you actually looked at the report? The £4,300 figure is mentioned 8 times in the main body of it, as well as in Osborne's foreword. Also, as far as I can tell, the 2030 difference is not divided by 2015 households. It looks, to me, as though the GDP per capita difference has been calculated using the estimated population for 2030, and has then been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44.
Why are people saying that the 2015 household figure has been used? What evidence is there for this?
Well, I've not actually been able to find any indication for what you say.
All the figures in the report are calculated to give a difference in GDP per capita - £1,800 in the case of the "Canada" scenario - and then appear to have been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44, before being rounded to the nearest £100. The report doesn't appear to make any assumptions on the number of households at all. It assumes, based on OBR figures, that the population in 2030 will be 71.4m (regardless of Brexit or not), and that the average household size will be 2.44
You state in your blog that "First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030." Where are you getting these figures from?
My figures come from reading reports from people who allegedly have read it, however as the numbers seemed to add up and work I had assumed they were correct.
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion 2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074. leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get remain £79322 Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
I have read it, or at least skimmed and searched it, and there is no mention of the number of households being 27 million or any other number. The number of households isn't mentioned. Where are your sources getting this number from?
Well, I've not actually been able to find any indication for what you say.
All the figures in the report are calculated to give a difference in GDP per capita - £1,800 in the case of the "Canada" scenario - and then appear to have been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44, before being rounded to the nearest £100. The report doesn't appear to make any assumptions on the number of households at all. It assumes, based on OBR figures, that the population in 2030 will be 71.4m (regardless of Brexit or not), and that the average household size will be 2.44
You state in your blog that "First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030." Where are you getting these figures from?
My figures come from reading reports from people who allegedly have read it, however as the numbers seemed to add up and work I had assumed they were correct.
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion 2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074. leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get remain £79322 Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
I have read it, or at least skimmed and searched it, and there is no mention of the number of households being 27 million or any other number. The number of households isn't mentioned. Where are your sources getting this number from?
From the newspaper reports that I link to initially but as you can see it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do. If you use the correct remain numbers for 2030 for both remain and Brexit to get a different result.
The more people and organisations made into lepers because they depart from the establishment line the better in my book. If Boris starts to get helpings of what has been meted out to Nigel and UKIP, I'm glad. He will quickly realise there's a real rottenness at the top of our politics that needs rooting out.
Didn't he compare Kippers to guys who had their genitals ripped off by vacuum cleaners?
Well, I've not actually been able to find any indication for what you say.
All the figures in the report are calculated to give a difference in GDP per capita - £1,800 in the case of the "Canada" scenario - and then appear to have been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44, before being rounded to the nearest £100. The report doesn't appear to make any assumptions on the number of households at all. It assumes, based on OBR figures, that the population in 2030 will be 71.4m (regardless of Brexit or not), and that the average household size will be 2.44
You state in your blog that "First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030." Where are you getting these figures from?
My figures come from reading reports from people who allegedly have read it, however as the numbers seemed to add up and work I had assumed they were correct.
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion 2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074. leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get remain £79322 Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
I have read it, or at least skimmed and searched it, and there is no mention of the number of households being 27 million or any other number. The number of households isn't mentioned. Where are your sources getting this number from?
From the newspaper reports that I link to initially but as you can see it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do. If you use the correct remain numbers for 2030 for both remain and Brexit to get a different result.
That doesn't make sense. First you say that 27 million gives £4667, then that it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do (£4300). You're contradicting yourself. And we still don't know where the £31 million figure came from.
Also, the treasury report assumes a population of 71.4m in 2030 regardless of Brexit or not. It considers only the differences arising from trade, not population.
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
Well, I've not actually been able to find any indication for what you say.
All the figures in the report are calculated to give a difference in GDP per capita - £1,800 in the case of the "Canada" scenario - and then appear to have been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44, before being rounded to the nearest £100. The report doesn't appear to make any assumptions on the number of households at all. It assumes, based on OBR figures, that the population in 2030 will be 71.4m (regardless of Brexit or not), and that the average household size will be 2.44
You state in your blog that "First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030." Where are you getting these figures from?
My figures come from reading reports from people who allegedly have read it, however as the numbers seemed to add up and work I had assumed they were correct.
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion 2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074. leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get remain £79322 Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
I have read it, or at least skimmed and searched it, and there is no mention of the number of households being 27 million or any other number. The number of households isn't mentioned. Where are your sources getting this number from?
From the newspaper reports that I link to initially but as you can see it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do. If you use the correct remain numbers for 2030 for both remain and Brexit to get a different result.
That doesn't make sense. First you say that 27 million gives £4667, then that it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do (£4300). You're contradicting yourself. And we still don't know where the £31 million figure came from.
Also, the treasury report assumes a population of 71.4m in 2030 regardless of Brexit or not. It considers only the differences arising from trade, not population.
I got the 31 million number from the telegraph report linked to in the post.
Well, I've not actually been able to find any indication for what you say.
All the figures in the report are calculated to give a difference in GDP per capita - £1,800 in the case of the "Canada" scenario - and then appear to have been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44, before being rounded to the nearest £100. The report doesn't appear to make any assumptions on the number of households at all. It assumes, based on OBR figures, that the population in 2030 will be 71.4m (regardless of Brexit or not), and that the average household size will be 2.44
You state in your blog that "First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030." Where are you getting these figures from?
My figures come from reading reports from people who allegedly have read it, however as the numbers seemed to add up and work I had assumed they were correct.
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion 2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074. leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get remain £79322 Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
I have read it, or at least skimmed and searched it, and there is no mention of the number of households being 27 million or any other number. The number of households isn't mentioned. Where are your sources getting this number from?
From the newspaper reports that I link to initially but as you can see it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do. If you use the correct remain numbers for 2030 for both remain and Brexit to get a different result.
That doesn't make sense. First you say that 27 million gives £4667, then that it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do (£4300). You're contradicting yourself. And we still don't know where the £31 million figure came from.
Also, the treasury report assumes a population of 71.4m in 2030 regardless of Brexit or not. It considers only the differences arising from trade, not population.
31 million households, not GBP. That'll be the wine!
Well, I've not actually been able to find any indication for what you say.
All the figures in the report are calculated to give a difference in GDP per capita - £1,800 in the case of the "Canada" scenario - and then appear to have been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44, before being rounded to the nearest £100. The report doesn't appear to make any assumptions on the number of households at all. It assumes, based on OBR figures, that the population in 2030 will be 71.4m (regardless of Brexit or not), and that the average household size will be 2.44
You state in your blog that "First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030." Where are you getting these figures from?
My figures come from reading reports from people who allegedly have read it, however as the numbers seemed to add up and work I had assumed they were correct.
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion 2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074. leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get remain £79322 Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
I have read it, or at least skimmed and searched it, and there is no mention of the number of households being 27 million or any other number. The number of households isn't mentioned. Where are your sources getting this number from?
From the newspaper reports that I link to initially but as you can see it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do. If you use the correct remain numbers for 2030 for both remain and Brexit to get a different result.
That doesn't make sense. First you say that 27 million gives £4667, then that it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do (£4300). You're contradicting yourself. And we still don't know where the £31 million figure came from.
Also, the treasury report assumes a population of 71.4m in 2030 regardless of Brexit or not. It considers only the differences arising from trade, not population.
I got the 31 million number from the telegraph report linked to in the post.
Yes, but where did the Telegraph report get it from? I'm no expert in current affairs, but I do know enough not to take newspapers at their word!
I've had a brainfart, does photosynthesis help seeds grow?
No. Seeds don't have leaves. You need moisture and warmth possibly after cold though depending on the seed.
Once they are seedlings then yes.
Cheers, need to edit the morning thread now.
I was more a physicist, not really interested in the other sciences.
Physics is the only decent science.
It all comes down to physics, in the end
Chemistry is an interesting branch of physics, and biology a somewhat less interesting branch of chemistry
If it bubbles and smells, it's chemistry. If it wriggles and smells, it's biology If it doesn't work, it must be physics.
That's about the size of it, though I always considered them in terms of the most likely way of ending up in hospital:
Biology: infection Chemistry: poisoning Physics: electrocution (which I once witnessed, luckily not fatally)
If you haven't been electrocuted several times you're not a proper physicist.
and certainly not an expert on - ahem - current affairs.
No, I'm here to learn. I'll admit that my knowledge of economics is pretty limited, but I can do maths. And I'm curious about where figures come from.
The biggest issue I have is assuming the numbers of people would be the same regardless of Brexit and that we would not be keen on other trade deals which do not require sharing sovereignty. Looks like a very odd set of assumptions which then go on to skew the result.
My figures come from reading reports from people who allegedly have read it, however as the numbers seemed to add up and work I had assumed they were correct.
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion 2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074. leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get remain £79322 Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
I have read it, or at least skimmed and searched it, and there is no mention of the number of households being 27 million or any other number. The number of households isn't mentioned. Where are your sources getting this number from?
From the newspaper reports that I link to initially but as you can see it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do. If you use the correct remain numbers for 2030 for both remain and Brexit to get a different result.
That doesn't make sense. First you say that 27 million gives £4667, then that it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do (£4300). You're contradicting yourself. And we still don't know where the £31 million figure came from.
Also, the treasury report assumes a population of 71.4m in 2030 regardless of Brexit or not. It considers only the differences arising from trade, not population.
I got the 31 million number from the telegraph report linked to in the post.
Yes, but where did the Telegraph report get it from? I'm no expert in current affairs, but I do know enough not to take newspapers at their word!
I can't answer that one, but I can agree on not trusting journalists but I also don't trust august reports either.
My figures come from reading reports from people who allegedly have read it, however as the numbers seemed to add up and work I had assumed they were correct.
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion 2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074. leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get remain £79322 Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
I have read it, or at least skimmed and searched it, and there is no mention of the number of households being 27 million or any other number. The number of households isn't mentioned. Where are your sources getting this number from?
From the newspaper reports that I link to initially but as you can see it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do. If you use the correct remain numbers for 2030 for both remain and Brexit to get a different result.
That doesn't make sense. First you say that 27 million gives £4667, then that it can only be 27 million to get the numbers that the treasury do (£4300). You're contradicting yourself. And we still don't know where the £31 million figure came from.
Also, the treasury report assumes a population of 71.4m in 2030 regardless of Brexit or not. It considers only the differences arising from trade, not population.
I got the 31 million number from the telegraph report linked to in the post.
Yes, but where did the Telegraph report get it from? I'm no expert in current affairs, but I do know enough not to take newspapers at their word!
I can't answer that one, but I can agree on not trusting journalists but I also don't trust august reports either.
If you don't trust journalists, why are you trusting a journalist? Why not actually read the report and make your own judgement?
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
It is astonishing Cameron thinks he can use the full weight of the taxpayer, outright fabricated figures and extreme scaremongering on his side, yet those on the other side should have to campaign halfheartedly or else be threatening party unity.
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
It is astonishing Cameron thinks he can use the full weight of the taxpayer, outright fabricated figures and extreme scaremongering on his side, yet those on the other side should have to campaign halfheartedly or else be threatening party unity.
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
It is astonishing Cameron thinks he can use the full weight of the taxpayer, outright fabricated figures and extreme scaremongering on his side, yet those on the other side should have to campaign halfheartedly or else be threatening party unity.
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
It is astonishing Cameron thinks he can use the full weight of the taxpayer, outright fabricated figures and extreme scaremongering on his side, yet those on the other side should have to campaign halfheartedly or else be threatening party unity.
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
It is astonishing Cameron thinks he can use the full weight of the taxpayer, outright fabricated figures and extreme scaremongering on his side, yet those on the other side should have to campaign halfheartedly or else be threatening party unity.
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
It is astonishing Cameron thinks he can use the full weight of the taxpayer, outright fabricated figures and extreme scaremongering on his side, yet those on the other side should have to campaign halfheartedly or else be threatening party unity.
What fabricated figures?
Edit: Also, what extreme scaremongering?
War in Europe (also genocide in original media briefings), migrant camps in South East England.
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
It is astonishing Cameron thinks he can use the full weight of the taxpayer, outright fabricated figures and extreme scaremongering on his side, yet those on the other side should have to campaign halfheartedly or else be threatening party unity.
Neither of those references indicates that the £4300 number is fabricated. Why do you think it is fabricated?
"The government is confusing GDP per household with household income." "Given that one of the key points of leaving the EU is supposed to be to tighten up the UK's borders, it seems a mistake not to take into account that effect. The same is true, as mentioned earlier, with the figures of GDP per household being based on the number of households in 2015, not a forecast for 2030." "Taken as a prediction of the cost to families, £4,300 is almost certainly wrong"
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
It is astonishing Cameron thinks he can use the full weight of the taxpayer, outright fabricated figures and extreme scaremongering on his side, yet those on the other side should have to campaign halfheartedly or else be threatening party unity.
What fabricated figures?
Edit: Also, what extreme scaremongering?
War in Europe (also genocide in original media briefings), migrant camps in South East England.
Ah yes, the mythical original media briefings. How about a reference to what Cameron actually said, rather than what people claimed/think he might have said/was going to say?
I was once a physicist - my PhD was in magnetohydrodynamic equilibria in fusion plasmas - long time ago now. I still do a bit a A-level tutoring though.
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
It is astonishing Cameron thinks he can use the full weight of the taxpayer, outright fabricated figures and extreme scaremongering on his side, yet those on the other side should have to campaign halfheartedly or else be threatening party unity.
Neither of those references indicates that the £4300 number is fabricated. Why do you think it is fabricated?
"The government is confusing GDP per household with household income." "Given that one of the key points of leaving the EU is supposed to be to tighten up the UK's borders, it seems a mistake not to take into account that effect. The same is true, as mentioned earlier, with the figures of GDP per household being based on the number of households in 2015, not a forecast for 2030." "Taken as a prediction of the cost to families, £4,300 is almost certainly wrong"
Another journalist quoter. :-) The actual report makes no mention of the number of households. Why do the journalists think that the figures for GDP per household are based on the number of households in 2015? Why do PBers put such trust in journalists?
Comments
Go borderlands!
Eurovision ha, who needs it if we have commonwealthovision (the name needs some work though).
But there is the risk that India may win all the time.
Why are people saying that the 2015 household figure has been used? What evidence is there for this?
Why not ?
After all, most people tomorrow will be talking about how Australia was robbed by those pesky europeans and how on earth Poland came from dead stone last up to there, while we where buried as usual.
Instead of Boris.
Goodnight.
https://www.rt.com/viral/343060-eurovision-song-contest-funded/
https://mobile.twitter.com/RT_com/status/731605156412809216/video/1
Yeah. Roger definitely knows what he's talking about.
re; Ladbrokes Eurovision tweet - It's kinda reassuring to know even the bookmakers hadn't got a clue about how the voting system would play out.
With my shaky grasp of ancient history (and for me that includes the early 90s as I was too young to remember it) I'm thinking Carthage and Rome are both wings of the Tory party fighting for control of the Party (Mediterranean world) through the EURef, hence why it is led by similar folk on both sides in the same way they were both republican oligarchies. The first punic war was 20 years ago when the pro-EU crowd won out but it didn't really settle matters, the second punic war is this campaign, with Remain (Rome) seemingly being kicked ten ways from sunday and losing ground everywhere in their heartland at least as incompetent leaders consumed with their own politics face off against much more able Leave commanders, but Remain still having enough factors in their favour, including wins in other areas (other parties) to win the day and crush Leave. The third punic war will be the aftermath of a Remain win, as they oppress and mistreat Leavers to the point where eventually all traces will be expunged from the party.
I shall be disappointed if instead it's just a reference of Boris being like a roman consul or something.
Looks like a big labour win in tooting majority 4-5k i think.
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2016/04/osbornes-accountancy-is-very-creative.html
I used 2030 households with an estimate for Brexit ones and got the reverse result.
"Downing Street has been told by “remain” pollsters that they are 8-10 points ahead despite most polls showing a dead heat, because the most pro-EU voters are hardest to reach."
The future of the House of Lords would be called into question if ministers press ahead with plans to curtail its powers, the Lord Speaker has said. Baroness D'Souza said the Lords "should be free to scrutinise, to question and to hold the government to account".
A review of the Lords was launched after it blocked government plans to cut tax credits in October, to the anger of Conservative ministers.
But Baroness D'Souza said limiting it would "question what it is there for".
During the last parliamentary session, the Lords inflicted 60 defeats on the government, including several changes to the housing bill last week. In return ministers have been clear they are looking into ways of making that harder.The review, was conducted by Lord Strathclyde.
I think this is wishful thinking. It is surely the oldies to are least likely to answer the phone and be online.
Once they are seedlings then yes.
Strikes me as a load of guff.
I was more a physicist, not really interested in the other sciences.
Physics is the only decent science.
My A level Physics teacher told me to always go back to first principles which is why I rip apart rubbish like the treasury report and spot its first principle errors.
All the figures in the report are calculated to give a difference in GDP per capita - £1,800 in the case of the "Canada" scenario - and then appear to have been multiplied by an assumed household size of 2.44, before being rounded to the nearest £100. The report doesn't appear to make any assumptions on the number of households at all. It assumes, based on OBR figures, that the population in 2030 will be 71.4m (regardless of Brexit or not), and that the average household size will be 2.44
You state in your blog that "First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030." Where are you getting these figures from?
Is Uber a good thing
and
Should we expand Heathrow
So far, no politicians have passed. Sadly, you've failed too :-(
But the most pro-EU voters are Lib Dems and younger ones. It is the Conservative leaning 55+ that are they hardest to reach and they lean to LEAVE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36293324
So lets look at households being 27 million.
2030 remain GDP is £2.459 trillion
2030 leave GDP is £2.333 trillion
Divide each by 27 mil and the results are
remain £91074.
leave £86407.
Difference £4667
Now if you use 31 million you get
remain £79322
Leave £75258.
Difference £4064
So the key is the extra £600. It shows they've used bollocks numbers. Also bollocks assumptions but they are economists and that's what economists do.
If it wriggles and smells, it's biology
If it doesn't work, it must be physics.
Biology: infection
Chemistry: poisoning
Physics: electrocution (which I once witnessed, luckily not fatally)
Also, the treasury report assumes a population of 71.4m in 2030 regardless of Brexit or not. It considers only the differences arising from trade, not population.
Frankly odd that he can slag the remain off for a hard campaign with a straight face on the one hand but I have to say I find the loyalty thing odd.
If this were a minor issue he would be bang on the money. Say for example a rise in tuition fees. Introducing them would be a bigger ask. However this is the future of the country and assuming Gove isn't doing it for game play (Not a fantastically safe assumption with Boris) surely it is a very legitimate issue of conscience?
"My scheme is intended only for honest men" - Comte de Borda, 1771
See here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201
https://fullfact.org/europe/4300-question-would-leaving-eu-really-make-every-household-worse/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/project-fear-scaremongering-almost-lost-scotland-what-makes-cameron-think-it-will-work-for-england/
"Given that one of the key points of leaving the EU is supposed to be to tighten up the UK's borders, it seems a mistake not to take into account that effect. The same is true, as mentioned earlier, with the figures of GDP per household being based on the number of households in 2015, not a forecast for 2030."
"Taken as a prediction of the cost to families, £4,300 is almost certainly wrong"