Richard, I don't understand why you repeatedly use insults like 'swivel-eyed' when someone has a different outlook / understanding to you.
Is it because you don't think your argument is strong enough, and so you add the insult?
Or is there another reason?
It's because I'm genuinely gobsmacked at the inconsistency of many Leavers, in this case the palpably bonkers outrage at one US politician 'interfering' and not at another US politician 'interfering'. If I keep repeating my astonishment, it's because I'm so struck by the phenomenon; it really is the most striking thing about the whole referendum.
Although I can 100% guarantee that I'll be misrepresented, let me make clear that I'm not referring to the proposition that Obama shouldn't have commented at all. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. What is not perfectly reasonable is to be so outraged by one and not the other.
I genuinely don't understand why so many on the Leave side are purblind on issues like this. It's hardly controversial to point out that Trump and Obama were both expressing an opinion on whether the UK should vote for Brexit, and were both expressing an opinion on how hard it would be to negotiate a trade deal with the US. It utterly baffles me that anyone can, with a straight face, argue that only one of those was outrageous.
1 is a bloke with a dodgy past. The other is the President.
(I'm here all night)
Don't mess with Donald Trump or they'll be hell toupee.
Alright, keep your hair on.
Which reminds me ....
I'm hearing a rumour that the first act of President Trump will be rename the Presidential aircraft - Hair Force One ....
His first trip to Camp David might inspire a new nickname for our PM.
And the first meeting with Mrs Trump - the new First Lady ....
PM - "Melania, lovely to meet you. Now tell me what attracted you to Donald apart from his $10bn and high blood pressure ...."
and "Dave we have your favourite, a pigs head for dinner - or a pre-dinner snack as you wish.."
I see that some people have taken the misquote seriously!
Calm down, dears:
[Osborne] said Treasury analysis suggested Britain could lose out on up to £200bn of trade by 2030, if it left the EU and reverted to World Trade Organization trading rules
This is a very effective Leave tactic, though. Because they are not able to engage with the argument they seek instead to distort what the argument is. They are very cleverly creating a meme that everything Remain says is wildly over the top and so can be safely ignored. Remain have to find a way round that. It's straight out of the SNP's Indy playbook.
It may be very effective because the scare stories are so obviously implausible, How do you engage with someone spouting complete nonsense? You cannot have a rational debate with a lunatic.
Obviously, the scare stories as spun by the Leave side are very implausible - that's the point.
However, I do not think it is implausible that GDP will take a hit - perhaps a sustained one - if we leave; neither do I think it implausible that leaving will cause a much greater level of regional instability and provide a boost to people like Putin. That all seems extremely plausible to me. I think Leave are doing a brilliant job of steering the way these issues are being covered.
When one considers that our largest sector deficit is finished manufactured goods, would the EU really want to start imposing tariffs and barriers for goods that could probably be produced in the UK for the same cost if there was less inertia?
There will not be tariffs on manufactured goods between the EU and the UK. It is highly unlikely there will be tariffs on services.
The issues, as always, are about using 'regulation' as a non-tariff barrier. NAFTA, for example, prohibits using local standards as an NTB, with the consequence that Canada's standards office has become essentially defunct; everyone simply manufacturers to US and standards and ships into the US.
All the things that you get to do seamlessly now with us as a member of the Single Market may not be so seamless in the future. And that means more time and more cost to do business in 27 countries. For companies in other EU member states it's additional costs and burdens in one country.
"George Osborne warns that Brexit would cost £200bn in lost investment and £200bn in trade each year"
Export of goods and services to the EU - £223bn.
Right.
They're just hoping people will think...
'Well I know that number is ridiculous, and the figure might be lower, but we still lose out, so I'll vote Remain'.
Will it work?
If the EU Ref becomes as much about Osbo as the AV ref did about Clegg then "Remain" have a serious problem on their hands.
It's a bit grubby but I've wondered whether Leave should do that for some time. Still undecided.
Before the loyalists get upset, Cameron and Osborne did exactly the same to their deputy PM.
Gloves off AFAIC - Remain have jumped into the gutter far too often. Osborne's no chance of being Next Leader - let Leave use him as a poster boy.
Vote Leave are too squeamish for me, Hannan is a gentleman. I want posters of Cameron and Osborne in ever Northern town, gurning over an EU flag waving wads.
I tell you guys this decision is not going to be taken by coldly examining the hard data- all semantics I'm afraid.
It'll be decided by which voting bloc is more committed to coming out and voting- I think the potential numbers committed to the status quo and staying are probably significantly higher, but whether they can actually be arsed voting is another thing entirely.
When one considers that our largest sector deficit is finished manufactured goods, would the EU really want to start imposing tariffs and barriers for goods that could probably be produced in the UK for the same cost if there was less inertia?
There will not be tariffs on manufactured goods between the EU and the UK. It is highly unlikely there will be tariffs on services.
The issues, as always, are about using 'regulation' as a non-tariff barrier. NAFTA, for example, prohibits using local standards as an NTB, with the consequence that Canada's standards office has become essentially defunct; everyone simply manufacturers to US and standards and ships into the US.
All the things that you get to do seamlessly now with us as a member of the Single Market may not be so seamless in the future. And that means more time and more cost to do business in 27 countries. For companies in other EU member states it's additional costs and burdens in one country.
"George Osborne warns that Brexit would cost £200bn in lost investment and £200bn in trade each year"
Export of goods and services to the EU - £223bn.
Right.
They're just hoping people will think...
'Well I know that number is ridiculous, and the figure might be lower, but we still lose out, so I'll vote Remain'.
Will it work?
If the EU Ref becomes as much about Osbo as the AV ref did about Clegg then "Remain" have a serious problem on their hands.
It's a bit grubby but I've wondered whether Leave should do that for some time. Still undecided.
Before the loyalists get upset, Cameron and Osborne did exactly the same to their deputy PM.
Gloves off AFAIC - Remain have jumped into the gutter far too often. Osborne's no chance of being Next Leader - let Leave use him as a poster boy.
Vote Leave are too squeamish for me, Hannan is a gentleman. I want posters of Cameron and Osborne in ever Northern town, gurning over an EU flag waving wads.
Its time for mud wrestling
A simple poster saying"these two twats want to REMAIN in the EU"
"George Osborne warns that Brexit would cost £200bn in lost investment and £200bn in trade each year"
Export of goods and services to the EU - £223bn.
Right.
They're just hoping people will think...
'Well I know that number is ridiculous, and the figure might be lower, but we still lose out, so I'll vote Remain'.
Will it work?
If the EU Ref becomes as much about Osbo as the AV ref did about Clegg then "Remain" have a serious problem on their hands.
It's a bit grubby but I've wondered whether Leave should do that for some time. Still undecided.
Before the loyalists get upset, Cameron and Osborne did exactly the same to their deputy PM.
Gloves off AFAIC - Remain have jumped into the gutter far too often. Osborne's no chance of being Next Leader - let Leave use him as a poster boy.
We've been almost as bad; there is literally zero chance of Turkey joining the EU.
Precisely. I think it's going to be gloves off time for a lot of people as the 28 days starts. Nobody is really neutral in this, so expect to see some of the self proclaimed 'Fact Checkers' getting a right pasting too - though I won't feel sorry for them as they have been universally smug about themselves so far!
Miss Plato, Turkey's already wanting free access for its citizens (think it's time-limited to a month or two) to Schengen, or they'll end the migration deal.
Wow, that was a long string of comments to read. Thanks all - great to read your thoughts and (most likely correct or at least difficult to refute) challenges to the 2016 election thesis.
I suppose it relies on one of:
- Leave wins, Cameron dumps GO and several other committed remainers and goes to country to try and cling on to power and negotiate our exit - Leave wins, Cameron resigns, unity Tory goes to country to seek enhanced mandate to negotiate - as the current parliamentary sitauation isn't exactly Leave friendly
But also, Remain wins but the vote is so close that politics is deadlocked because of Tory rebels
And, just to throw it is in the mix, mass realignment of UK politics - we're surely due one, eh hunchman?
Two Guardian/ICM EU referendum polls demonstrate a widening disparity between phone and internet polling, with one producing a 10-point lead for remain and the second reporting that the leave campaign is ahead by four.
The gap in results between online and telephone surveys has been a constant feature of referendum polling, with phone polls consistently putting remain ahead, while internet surveys point to something like a dead heat.
But the contrast in the two surveys is particularly stark, because they were conducted concurrently and deployed as similar vote adjustment methodologies as possible. In ICM’s phone poll, remain is eight points clear of leave, at 47% compared with 39%, with 14% undecided. Once the “don’t knows” are excluded, remain looks set for a clear-10 point lead, by 55% to 45%.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if UKIP maintain that sort of polling if they'll actually focus on some seats next time rather than spreading themselves so thin and getting very little.
Of course, the wide but shallow support model could work for the purples if Corbyn's disastrous.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if UKIP maintain that sort of polling if they'll actually focus on some seats next time rather than spreading themselves so thin and getting very little.
Of course, the wide but shallow support model could work for the purples if Corbyn's disastrous.
As somebody cruelly pointed out to me a while back, at the last General Election UKIP all their resources at just one seat, and still lost.
Putting aside Staines comment (which is kinda of nonsense), this is what I never quite get when their is an uproar at any suggestion that the Beeb could fund itself using advertising...people do their nut about impartiality etc, when the Beeb has long taken advertising money on their international facing versions of sites, for public spin off shows etc etc etc and the fact Ch4 manages to take the advertising dollars and I don't think anybody has ever suggested their left wing slant has ever been tainted / stifled by taking the filthy lucre of private corporations.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if UKIP maintain that sort of polling if they'll actually focus on some seats next time rather than spreading themselves so thin and getting very little.
Of course, the wide but shallow support model could work for the purples if Corbyn's disastrous.
As somebody cruelly pointed out to me a while back, at the last General Election UKIP all their resources at just one seat, and still lost.
It may be cruel but its a fact, the Ukip campaign descended into a clusterfuck around Thanet South. The problem Ukip have is the other parties know their target market based on decades of data
The U.K.-based publisher is now posting 650 videos a day, which has resulted in a 516 percent jump in views in the past year. It's getting 383 million monthly video views, 12 million video views per day, and claims an 80 percent completion and viewability rate.
“Given the current state of party politics,” Martin Boon of ICM Unlimited explains, “raw data suggesting a solid Labour lead will look questionable to many. It may be that the long drift for declining response rates is affecting the quality, and skewing the sample towards Labour, just as it did in the final phone polls at the general election.”
Putting aside Staines comment (which is kinda of nonsense), this is what I never quite get when their is an uproar at any suggestion that the Beeb could fund itself using advertising...people do their nut about impartiality etc, when the Beeb has long taken advertising money on their international facing versions of sites, for public spin off shows etc etc etc and the fact Ch4 manages to take the advertising dollars and I don't think anybody has ever suggested their left wing slant has ever been tainted / stifled by taking the filthy lucre of private corporations.
I wonder if it is like PB, an outside company deals with the ads on your behalf, and the user gets to see ads based on their user history.
I'll never forget one poster complaining about getting adverts for Russian Mail Order brides, and Mike telling him it was to do with the poster's browsing history.
The U.K.-based publisher is now posting 650 videos a day, which has resulted in a 516 percent jump in views in the past year. It's getting 383 million monthly video views, 12 million video views per day, and claims an 80 percent completion and viewability rate.
Putting aside Staines comment (which is kinda of nonsense), this is what I never quite get when their is an uproar at any suggestion that the Beeb could fund itself using advertising...people do their nut about impartiality etc, when the Beeb has long taken advertising money on their international facing versions of sites, for public spin off shows etc etc etc and the fact Ch4 manages to take the advertising dollars and I don't think anybody has ever suggested their left wing slant has ever been tainted / stifled by taking the filthy lucre of private corporations.
I wonder if it is like PB, an outside company deals with the ads on your behalf, and the user gets to see ads based on their user history.
I'll never forget one poster complaining about getting adverts for Russian Mail Order brides, and Mike telling him it was to do with the posters browsing history.
It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. My point was more the issue in relation to the fact the BBC has long taken adverts, but somehow any suggestion that could move to such a model of funding would be a disaster.
Putting aside Staines comment (which is kinda of nonsense), this is what I never quite get when their is an uproar at any suggestion that the Beeb could fund itself using advertising...people do their nut about impartiality etc, when the Beeb has long taken advertising money on their international facing versions of sites, for public spin off shows etc etc etc and the fact Ch4 manages to take the advertising dollars and I don't think anybody has ever suggested their left wing slant has ever been tainted / stifled by taking the filthy lucre of private corporations.
I wonder if it is like PB, an outside company deals with the ads on your behalf, and the user gets to see ads based on their user history.
I'll never forget one poster complaining about getting adverts for Russian Mail Order brides, and Mike telling him it was to do with the posters browsing history.
It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. My point was more the issue in relation to the fact the BBC has long taken adverts, but somehow any suggestion that could move to such a model of funding would be a disaster.
Isn't the counter argument, that if the PB took adverts, they'd be taking money away from commercial rivals, who desperately need it?
We should have two more phone polls, and two more online polls by the weekend, it'll be interesting if this pattern holds.
I do believe that Vote Leave have been using ICM online polls for their private polling, whilst Remain are using Populus phone polls to do their private polling.
Putting aside Staines comment (which is kinda of nonsense), this is what I never quite get when their is an uproar at any suggestion that the Beeb could fund itself using advertising...people do their nut about impartiality etc, when the Beeb has long taken advertising money on their international facing versions of sites, for public spin off shows etc etc etc and the fact Ch4 manages to take the advertising dollars and I don't think anybody has ever suggested their left wing slant has ever been tainted / stifled by taking the filthy lucre of private corporations.
I wonder if it is like PB, an outside company deals with the ads on your behalf, and the user gets to see ads based on their user history.
I'll never forget one poster complaining about getting adverts for Russian Mail Order brides, and Mike telling him it was to do with the posters browsing history.
It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. My point was more the issue in relation to the fact the BBC has long taken adverts, but somehow any suggestion that could move to such a model of funding would be a disaster.
Isn't the counter argument, that if the PB took adverts, they'd be taking money away from commercial rivals, who desperately need it?
Not sure advertising is inelastic like that, especially in this world of tv, radio, print, plus all different forms of internet content delivery.
So Leave is going up or down, but Remain are going down.
I say the best metric is to average the two, since not even ICM is confident about it's polls anymore.
It looks MoE to me, which is interesting by itself given the amount of eggs and chips being flung around.
I stand by what I said over the weekend - a true Remain lead of 6-8%.
I'd still my view that what the mass of floating voters in the U.K. want is the closest possible Remain result - ideally, 51-49% - and will try and conspire to get such a result, which may will miraculously materialise through psephological osmosis.
I posted this two weeks ago but, given the theme, I thought it might be of interest:
"Completely O/T (and sorry for the long message).
Re Trump: I spent a few weeks with my in-laws in California (black, middle class Democrats; my wife is - pardon the pun - the black sheep of the family as the lone Republican). Several thoughts:
1. We underestimate how many people hate Hilary. "Unpopular" is not half of it. My sister-in-law, who is Democrat as they come, is voting for Trump because she hates Hilary; many of her friends feel the same; her son is pro-Sanders - he won't vote Trump but doubtful he will vote HRC. Women under 45 do not have that bond.
2. Not all Hispanics are the same. It is a lazy assumption. A Mexican immigrant on the West Coast and a Cuban-American in Florida are not the same. Notice Trump attacks "The Mexicans". Trump knows there are more votes in attacking Central American immigration than in standing up for them (he won't win California and he can lose Nevada). But that does not mean he has given up on Florida.
3. I was impressed by Trump's acumen: while I was there, two big political issues were North Carolina's transgender law on bathrooms and black anti-slave campaigner Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. Trump opposed the first and wanted to keep Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill. Why? The transgender issue fires up Sanders' supporters; as a few of them see Hillary as a bigger issue than Trump why alienate them? But Trump realises he will not get African-American voters re the $20 bill but can appeal further to the WWC who feel political correctness has gone too far.
4. Beware of "Shy Trumpsters": an anecdote - my wife's 21 yr old niece (black, university in San Francisco) is voting Trump; many of her friends are doing the same but will not say it publicly. We have heard others say the same.
Re Trump's road to 270 electoral votes:
1. I cannot see Trump losing any of Romney's states. The furore over the transgender law and companies boycotting NC has galvanised Republicans there. In Arizona, the Mexican Wall will win votes. That is 201.
2. Next is Florida. Trump knows the state like the back of his hand; his club was the first in Palm Beach to admit Jewish people, gays and Hispanics when all other clubs barred them; his daughters married into the Jewish faith so that will help him; and many of Florida's Hispanics do not associate themselves as Mexicans. He wins, he is at 230.
3. Then the Rustbelt. Hillary has underperformed polls. Given his anti-free trade stance, Trump would look for two of Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. Let's say Ohio only, that is 248.
4. After that, NJ. Trump's highest scores are in White, Catholic states, which is NJ to a tee. Hillary goes down in NJ like a bag of sick. That is 262. He has a decent chance in NH - so 266.
5. All he needs then is one other tate to flip - Iowa e.g. and then there are states like PA and even NY which cannot be ruled out. "
Comments
Hoist by his own petanque
Let's try quintuple egg and chips, and cause a heart attack.
However, I do not think it is implausible that GDP will take a hit - perhaps a sustained one - if we leave; neither do I think it implausible that leaving will cause a much greater level of regional instability and provide a boost to people like Putin. That all seems extremely plausible to me. I think Leave are doing a brilliant job of steering the way these issues are being covered.
Before the loyalists get upset, Cameron and Osborne did exactly the same to their deputy PM.
And don't listen to me. Former senior IMF economist Ashoka Mody has described them as 'nonsense', 'silly' and 'absurdly high'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/Leading_business_story/why-boris-johnson-is-right-about-europe-a6909811.html
https://twitter.com/AshokaMody/status/725686778632491008
https://twitter.com/AshokaMody/status/722300747518513152
Its time for mud wrestling
https://twitter.com/GCHQ/status/732216394423603202
It'll be decided by which voting bloc is more committed to coming out and voting- I think the potential numbers committed to the status quo and staying are probably significantly higher, but whether they can actually be arsed voting is another thing entirely.
https://twitter.com/World_First/status/732232541059612674
I suppose it relies on one of:
- Leave wins, Cameron dumps GO and several other committed remainers and goes to country to try and cling on to power and negotiate our exit
- Leave wins, Cameron resigns, unity Tory goes to country to seek enhanced mandate to negotiate - as the current parliamentary sitauation isn't exactly Leave friendly
But also, Remain wins but the vote is so close that politics is deadlocked because of Tory rebels
And, just to throw it is in the mix, mass realignment of UK politics - we're surely due one, eh hunchman?
The gap in results between online and telephone surveys has been a constant feature of referendum polling, with phone polls consistently putting remain ahead, while internet surveys point to something like a dead heat.
But the contrast in the two surveys is particularly stark, because they were conducted concurrently and deployed as similar vote adjustment methodologies as possible. In ICM’s phone poll, remain is eight points clear of leave, at 47% compared with 39%, with 14% undecided. Once the “don’t knows” are excluded, remain looks set for a clear-10 point lead, by 55% to 45%.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/16/phone-poll-finds-10-point-lead-for-remain-but-web-survey-puts-leave-ahead-brexit?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/732233198885830656
Both samples look implausibly skewed and produced completely different results. Where is reality? 'somewhere in between'.
Fingers in the air next time?
Remain 47 (-1)
Leave 39 (-2)
ICM online poll
Remain 43 (-1)
Leave 47 (+1)
CON: 34% (-2)
lab: 32% (+1)
UKIP: 17% (+1)
LDEM: 7% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)
Phone poll
CON: 36% (-2)
lab: 34% (+1)
UKIP: 13% (-)
LDEM: 7% (-)
GRN: 4% (+1)
Of course, the wide but shallow support model could work for the purples if Corbyn's disastrous.
Putting aside Staines comment (which is kinda of nonsense), this is what I never quite get when their is an uproar at any suggestion that the Beeb could fund itself using advertising...people do their nut about impartiality etc, when the Beeb has long taken advertising money on their international facing versions of sites, for public spin off shows etc etc etc and the fact Ch4 manages to take the advertising dollars and I don't think anybody has ever suggested their left wing slant has ever been tainted / stifled by taking the filthy lucre of private corporations.
http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/daily-mail-now-posting-650-videos-day-and-getting-383-million-monthly-views-171439
I'll never forget one poster complaining about getting adverts for Russian Mail Order brides, and Mike telling him it was to do with the poster's browsing history.
I say the best metric is to average the two, since not even ICM is confident about it's polls anymore.
Eng 5 3 2 1
Wal 4 8 6 2
Rus 4 2 5 -3
Slo 3 3 3 0
Wal 1 3 Slo Eng 2 2 Wal
Eng 0 0 Rus Rus 1 5 Wal
Rus 1 0 Slo Eng 1 0 Slo
I do believe that Vote Leave have been using ICM online polls for their private polling, whilst Remain are using Populus phone polls to do their private polling.
Makes life interesting.
I stand by what I said over the weekend - a true Remain lead of 6-8%.
I'd still my view that what the mass of floating voters in the U.K. want is the closest possible Remain result - ideally, 51-49% - and will try and conspire to get such a result, which may will miraculously materialise through psephological osmosis.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
"Completely O/T (and sorry for the long message).
Re Trump: I spent a few weeks with my in-laws in California (black, middle class Democrats; my wife is - pardon the pun - the black sheep of the family as the lone Republican). Several thoughts:
1. We underestimate how many people hate Hilary. "Unpopular" is not half of it. My sister-in-law, who is Democrat as they come, is voting for Trump because she hates Hilary; many of her friends feel the same; her son is pro-Sanders - he won't vote Trump but doubtful he will vote HRC. Women under 45 do not have that bond.
2. Not all Hispanics are the same. It is a lazy assumption. A Mexican immigrant on the West Coast and a Cuban-American in Florida are not the same. Notice Trump attacks "The Mexicans". Trump knows there are more votes in attacking Central American immigration than in standing up for them (he won't win California and he can lose Nevada). But that does not mean he has given up on Florida.
3. I was impressed by Trump's acumen: while I was there, two big political issues were North Carolina's transgender law on bathrooms and black anti-slave campaigner Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. Trump opposed the first and wanted to keep Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill. Why? The transgender issue fires up Sanders' supporters; as a few of them see Hillary as a bigger issue than Trump why alienate them? But Trump realises he will not get African-American voters re the $20 bill but can appeal further to the WWC who feel political correctness has gone too far.
4. Beware of "Shy Trumpsters": an anecdote - my wife's 21 yr old niece (black, university in San Francisco) is voting Trump; many of her friends are doing the same but will not say it publicly. We have heard others say the same.
Re Trump's road to 270 electoral votes:
1. I cannot see Trump losing any of Romney's states. The furore over the transgender law and companies boycotting NC has galvanised Republicans there. In Arizona, the Mexican Wall will win votes. That is 201.
2. Next is Florida. Trump knows the state like the back of his hand; his club was the first in Palm Beach to admit Jewish people, gays and Hispanics when all other clubs barred them; his daughters married into the Jewish faith so that will help him; and many of Florida's Hispanics do not associate themselves as Mexicans. He wins, he is at 230.
3. Then the Rustbelt. Hillary has underperformed polls. Given his anti-free trade stance, Trump would look for two of Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. Let's say Ohio only, that is 248.
4. After that, NJ. Trump's highest scores are in White, Catholic states, which is NJ to a tee. Hillary goes down in NJ like a bag of sick. That is 262. He has a decent chance in NH - so 266.
5. All he needs then is one other tate to flip - Iowa e.g. and then there are states like PA and even NY which cannot be ruled out. "