There are far more ex-pats in non EU countries than EU countries.
Which way will the non EU ex pats vote in the referendum?
Channel Islands: 73,030
Germany: 96,938
France: 172,806
Ireland: 253,605
South Africa: 305,660
New Zealand: 313,850
Spain: 381,025
Canada: 674,371
United States of America: 758,919
Australia: 1,277,474
Wow so over five and a half times the number in English speaking countries (or very predominantly - Canada or quasi S Africa) compared to Europe. The Anglosphere gets the votes with feet attached doesn't it?
Not including the Channel Islands, it looks like a toss of the coin between Ireland and NZ for most Brits as a percentage of the overall population.
Out of interest, what are so many Brits doing in Ireland? Is it joint passport-holding folk from the north? I'd be surprised if it was a whole host of people from England, Wales and Scotland.
London + Eurostar line + M23 + Brighton & Hove council area – would make for a great europhile City State of London in the EU with access to the sea. Nor would London then be an enclave. We'd probably annex LGW too, but could live without it as we'd already have LHR and LCY.
Have you thought about what you would do with the Palace of Westminster and all of those office buildings around Whitehall when the UK government moves out?
Housing and office space. The world will come to London as the undisputed capital of the EU.
Outwith the UK, London would gradually become a backwater, as government, administration, law, and people moved elsewhere.
Most of the finance work that goes on in London has very little to do with rUK.
There's a tendency, though, for cities to decline once they're cut off from their hinterland. For example, both Vienna and Trieste are magnificent cities, but they faltered after 1918.
I'm finding it mentally very hard to see a "remain" win in Sunderland. Obviously it's ultimately not relevant because if Islington was counting first I couldn't see a "leave" win there.
But Sunderland is a solid Labour area (And I expect Tory areas to be quite pro Brexit as well as "old Labour" places) - which means the pool of "remain" reservoirs is strictly smaller than the Lib Dem + Labour + SNP + Sinn Fein constituencies at the GE.
It's this cognitive dissonance that makes me think "leave" probably wins.
Remain don't need to win Sunderland do they? a narrow loss points towards them winning overall.
Anything over 40% in sunderland probably has remain on track
hmmm Remain need to be closer than that.
I think the par result for Sunderland is 52/48 LEAVE IIRC.
Does anyone know of a "par" spreadsheet for the count IE if was 50/50 overall we expect in area X remain would get 51% Leave 49 in area Z remain get 49% Leave 51 % etc,
On the subject of invasions why do people forget Flodden Field? When Mr G's mates invaded England with an army of around 40,000. The Duke of Surrey rounded up half a dozen locals armed with toothbrushes and gave them a good hiding. James IV - The last British monarch to die in battle.
An interesting header, but a flawed one. The EZ does not cause population movements, indeed some of the biggest population movements are from non EZ countries to EZ countries. There are over a million Romanians in Italy and nearly as many in Spain. The Italian and Spanish economies have both had major difficulties over the last decades yet thesepeoples have found employment. There are also large numbers of Brits in these EZ countries.
Economic migration is a worldwide phenomenon, and the line between this and political persecution is blurred. The migration stresses on the Schengen zone are not the internal migrants so much as the external ones, and the same goes with us. The economic participation of EU migrants in the UK is far higher than that of non-EU migration.
One might make the same case on a world wide basis that TP makes for Europe. Without world government and major fiscal transfers to poorer parts of the world continued migration is going to happen.
Thanks to all for the feedback. To attempt to answer FoxinSox's very fair criticism, and to get more into some of my other reasons for supporting Brexit, I'd say:
1) Yes, naturally the population movements are greater to a (currently) more successful economy within the EU. And naturally people want to move out of relatively poorer countries regardless of whether that's down to the baleful effects of the EZ or the legacy of Communism.
2) Large though they are, the population movements within the EU don't come close to offsetting the internal structural imbalance caused by giving Berlin the same interest rates as Berlin. Hence all the unemployment, and hence why fiscal transfers are required if the Euro is to succeed.
3) You are of course right that the same argument can be applied at a worldwide level. All the EU does is put up the border at a different location [so Remainers should spare us the Stronger Together stuff unless they're in favour of free movement from e.g. Africa - which is a perfectly coherent and respectable position to hold].
4) Migration will continue to happen - I happen to think we have a duty to limit it. It's essentially a middle class racket whereby our middle classes import the would-be middle classes [it's the most dynamic who migrate] from poorer countries to supplant our own working class. It's a very tricky argument though: God knows I'd probably be a migrant if I'd been born in Timisoara or Addis Ababa.
"We both nominated Corbyn for leader last year. We have never had cause to doubt his commitment to society’s most disadvantaged and to Labour’s values – a commitment we all share. But we have come to regret that decision."
If Leave win, putting Jeremy Corbyn in place will be her biggest political legacy.
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's more a prediction than a poll result.
Also quite different from ICM, who basically found it all too stressful and gave up.
He's more right than he is wrong. On other forums I constantly see people stating as truth that London is massively subsidized and massively favoured in government spending. That has always been true in Arts spending and in the last decade or so, in Transport spending, but the bald reality is course is massive transfer of taxes from London to elsewhere.
But no London is a cancer, it sucks the country dry, it takes all the resources etc etc. The main problem is that most people are ignorant to economics and don't understand growth. People naturally believe in the Lump of labour fallacy and other forms of zero sum trade offs.
They believe if someone has more it must mean they have less because of that. So believe protectionism will make them richer, or that more state spending will make there are richer etc etc.
So London has got richer and richer in recent decades, and the World has come to party with all those evil foreign millionaires paying too much for property and expensive food and all those glamorous parties etc etc. Meanwhile out in the provinces high flying careers are thin on the ground people have to live much less flashier lives than in 'London'. Manufacturing seems to have gone (not really, it's upskilled and only employs engineers and very few semi skilled people anymore).
The imbalance between London and the rest of the country is a problem, but only in the political resentments it breeds. The country decided London was growing too much before and brought in things like the green belt and then national planning to depopulate London and force businesses out of the Capital.
It may have achieved some of it's objectives (Harlow, Stevenage and Basildon), but at a considerable cost. Business were forced to operate in sub optimal locations, making them more inefficient either through split locations or to avoid that fate low growth. London GDP grew less and some areas grew faster, what was ignored was that we grew slower overall as a result.
Modern economies depend on agglomeration factors more than others. Or the network effect. We thought the modern economy would send people fleeing to small towns and low cost places. It has not worked out that way,wealth and growth is rushing to large population centres with large and deep educated workforces, London's commuter zone encompenses nearly 18 million people, it's the biggest in Europe if you want a big choice of rare talents then you need a market big enough to support an industry large enough that many firms can employ them and a healthy market place develop.
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's a credible position, in my view. I note they think the main impact of the murder is to drive up certainty to vote amongst soft Remainers and younger voters.
Which I agree with.
I'd now be disappointed with 54:46, although I wouldn't have been at the start of the campaign.
I'm finding it mentally very hard to see a "remain" win in Sunderland. Obviously it's ultimately not relevant because if Islington was counting first I couldn't see a "leave" win there.
But Sunderland is a solid Labour area (And I expect Tory areas to be quite pro Brexit as well as "old Labour" places) - which means the pool of "remain" reservoirs is strictly smaller than the Lib Dem + Labour + SNP + Sinn Fein constituencies at the GE.
It's this cognitive dissonance that makes me think "leave" probably wins.
Remain don't need to win Sunderland do they? a narrow loss points towards them winning overall.
Anything over 40% in sunderland probably has remain on track
hmmm Remain need to be closer than that.
I think the par result for Sunderland is 52/48 LEAVE IIRC.
Does anyone know of a "par" spreadsheet for the count IE if was 50/50 overall we expect in area X remain would get 51% Leave 49 in area Z remain get 49% Leave 51 % etc,
It turns out that the problem is that it's not that London it too large it is that Britain's 2nd tier cities are too small. We industrialised first in the early steam period around many quite small towns, some of which later grew into largish cities, but more often than not lots of medium sized towns near each other but not one functioning network. Other countries industilised later and have fewer large towns but larger regional cities.
Basically Britain is missing a couple of large cites in the 2 to 4 million people range.
Hence the chancellors recent mission for Northern Powerhouse etc, and the creation of HS3 to build much faster commuter links between the Norths cities to expand commuter shed and deepen their labour pool.
It's smart politics in two ways. If done right, it will strengthen the Norths economies and help them to grow. A more balanced economy mean macro economic policy will more likely effect all parts of the country equally rather than the hot house conditions of one part.
When people see serious amounts of money being spent outside London (they don't see income transfers) on things like the High speed network and new commuter and light rail networks then they will be less resentful of the large amounts of money that needs to be spent on London's infrastructure and another crossrail won't even come close.
There are far more ex-pats in non EU countries than EU countries.
Which way will the non EU ex pats vote in the referendum?
Channel Islands: 73,030
Germany: 96,938
France: 172,806
Ireland: 253,605
South Africa: 305,660
New Zealand: 313,850
Spain: 381,025
Canada: 674,371
United States of America: 758,919
Australia: 1,277,474
Wow so over five and a half times the number in English speaking countries (or very predominantly - Canada or quasi S Africa) compared to Europe. The Anglosphere gets the votes with feet attached doesn't it?
Not including the Channel Islands, it looks like a toss of the coin between Ireland and NZ for most Brits as a percentage of the overall population.
Out of interest, what are so many Brits doing in Ireland? Is it joint passport-holding folk from the north? I'd be surprised if it was a whole host of people from England, Wales and Scotland.
Germany isn't particularly popular, is it?
Don't know why. I quite like Germany.
Actually that list is very revealing. Spain and France are probably retirees for the most part (of course there will be workers/marriages too) but you suspect the Anglosphere is a much younger demographic overall and is more a "heart" decision of "where do I want to spend my life?". Part of the EU's continuing issue with the Brits and one which isn't going anywhere on Friday whatever the outcome, is that the answer to that question is never "Duesseldorf".
Final Euro 2016 update, and related to the referendum. ENG opponents (playing Mon, note no change due to yesterday's action): Hungary 51%, Iceland 22%, Austria 16%, Portugal 11%
WALES opponents (playing Sat): Turkey 64%, NI 36%
NI opponents (Sun/Sat): France 64%, Wales 36%
Finger in the air, I reckon possible referendum effects, relative to there being no football are about:
Feel good factor across Wales and NI from qualifying - 60000 transfers from Leave to Remain (0.2% nationally) If Wales play Turkey - 60000 transfers Remain to Leave, mainly in Wales, neutralising the feel good. If Wales play NI - 30000 transfers Leave to Remain, mainly in Wales, as NI situation on Brexit thought about and extra excitement. (0.1%) For England, expectations merely met, so no innate feel good, but a Portugal game could get the dander up and drive 90000 transfers Leave to Remain. (0.3%) Every other draw is a bit meh. Scotland, Remain 60000 votes (0.2%) down relative to no football.
So, effect of Euros, from 0.2% down to 0.4% up on the Remain vote total imho relative to no football, depending on today's results. And a swing of perhaps 2%+ positive for remain in Wales.
What needs to happen today (done from a Remain pov, but Leave is obviously the failure to meet these conditions).
For Wales to meet NI rather than Turkey (worth 0.3% to remain), the third place teams in groups E and F both need to qualify:
For group F this requires Portugal to at least draw with Hungary For group E this requires either (a) an RoI victory over Italy or (b) for Sweden to beat Belgium but by fewer than 4 clear goals
For England to meet Portugal (worth 0.3% to remain): (1) Portugal need to at least draw with Hungary (2) Iceland need to get the same Win/Draw result as Portugal (3) If a win, Iceland need to better Portugal's win result to consign them to second, if a draw Portugal need a higher scoring draw (ideally by 2) to edge out Iceland for second on goals scored
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's more a prediction than a poll result.
Also quite different from ICM, who basically found it all too stressful and gave up.
Yeah, I find it really odd that ICM didn't produce eve of poll numbers.
There are far more ex-pats in non EU countries than EU countries.
Which way will the non EU ex pats vote in the referendum?
Channel Islands: 73,030
Germany: 96,938
France: 172,806
Ireland: 253,605
South Africa: 305,660
New Zealand: 313,850
Spain: 381,025
Canada: 674,371
United States of America: 758,919
Australia: 1,277,474
Wow so over five and a half times the number in English speaking countries (or very predominantly - Canada or quasi S Africa) compared to Europe. The Anglosphere gets the votes with feet attached doesn't it?
Not including the Channel Islands, it looks like a toss of the coin between Ireland and NZ for most Brits as a percentage of the overall population.
Out of interest, what are so many Brits doing in Ireland? Is it joint passport-holding folk from the north? I'd be surprised if it was a whole host of people from England, Wales and Scotland.
Germany isn't particularly popular, is it?
Don't know why. I quite like Germany.
Actually that list is very revealing. Spain and France are probably retirees for the most part (of course there will be workers/marriages too) but you suspect the Anglosphere is a much younger demographic overall and is more a "heart" decision of "where do I want to spend my life?". Part of the EU's continuing issue with the Brits and one which isn't going anywhere on Friday whatever the outcome, is that the answer to that question is never "Duesseldorf".
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's a credible position, in my view. I note they think the main impact of the murder is to drive up certainty to vote amongst soft Remainers and younger voters.
Which I agree with.
I'd now be disappointed with 54:46, although I wouldn't have been at the start of the campaign.
What will be will be.
I'll be satisfied I've done everything I could, although disappointed we lost.
I'm finding it mentally very hard to see a "remain" win in Sunderland. Obviously it's ultimately not relevant because if Islington was counting first I couldn't see a "leave" win there.
But Sunderland is a solid Labour area (And I expect Tory areas to be quite pro Brexit as well as "old Labour" places) - which means the pool of "remain" reservoirs is strictly smaller than the Lib Dem + Labour + SNP + Sinn Fein constituencies at the GE.
It's this cognitive dissonance that makes me think "leave" probably wins.
Remain don't need to win Sunderland do they? a narrow loss points towards them winning overall.
Anything over 40% in sunderland probably has remain on track
hmmm Remain need to be closer than that.
I think the par result for Sunderland is 52/48 LEAVE IIRC.
Does anyone know of a "par" spreadsheet for the count IE if was 50/50 overall we expect in area X remain would get 51% Leave 49 in area Z remain get 49% Leave 51 % etc,
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's more a prediction than a poll result.
Also quite different from ICM, who basically found it all too stressful and gave up.
My favourite ICM was the 14pt gap between phone/online - both conducted to the same methodology.
I'd retreat from the field too, rather than get sucked into a high stakes reputation gamble.
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's a credible position, in my view. I note they think the main impact of the murder is to drive up certainty to vote amongst soft Remainers and younger voters.
Which I agree with.
I'd now be disappointed with 54:46, although I wouldn't have been at the start of the campaign.
After a breakfast meeting, I have scrolled back on this article's comments for two hours worth and not noticed much, if any response from REMAIN people to disagree with Tissue Price's article and to explain why. I may have missed some fundamental points from REMAIN supporters so could they please recap their contrary view or do they all agree with TP?
TC- this is the reply I gave to Casino earlier, and you would probably class me as remainiac
"Casino- rest assured Europhilia is going to kicked into the long grass for a long, long time after tomorrow.
Tissue Price is probably right...the EU will unravel in due course. But you know the markets more than most. If we jump first, the markets will punish us, severely. If we stay in and wait, we will likely be the beneficiaries of an EU implosion."
And my reply was that, even if he is right, these things typically play out over a much longer timescale than the doom-mongers predict. This may therefore be an issue for the younger generation rather than ours...
Ian B2 and Tyson. Thank you for your views. Ian B2 - I agree that it is difficult to predict when the EU unravels. Tyson - history in the form of leaving the ERM and staying out of the euro shows that the markets did not punish us - they actually rewarded us through higher growth (than the ERM/Eurozone).
Which does lead to the question of why go now? I believe that we would get a first country benefit in realigning ourselves to the realities of the global world than this illusion of a protected trade block with its burdensome overheads. It takes time to change and my experience in companies and change, is that the company that makes changes with an eye to improving its competitiveness at its own pace, rather than having to violently respond to outside forces, will emerge healthier and have a better chance of survival.
There are far more ex-pats in non EU countries than EU countries.
Which way will the non EU ex pats vote in the referendum?
Channel Islands: 73,030
Germany: 96,938
France: 172,806
Ireland: 253,605
South Africa: 305,660
New Zealand: 313,850
Spain: 381,025
Canada: 674,371
United States of America: 758,919
Australia: 1,277,474
Wow so over five and a half times the number in English speaking countries (or very predominantly - Canada or quasi S Africa) compared to Europe. The Anglosphere gets the votes with feet attached doesn't it?
Not including the Channel Islands, it looks like a toss of the coin between Ireland and NZ for most Brits as a percentage of the overall population.
Out of interest, what are so many Brits doing in Ireland? Is it joint passport-holding folk from the north? I'd be surprised if it was a whole host of people from England, Wales and Scotland.
Germany isn't particularly popular, is it?
Don't know why. I quite like Germany.
Actually that list is very revealing. Spain and France are probably retirees for the most part (of course there will be workers/marriages too) but you suspect the Anglosphere is a much younger demographic overall and is more a "heart" decision of "where do I want to spend my life?". Part of the EU's continuing issue with the Brits and one which isn't going anywhere on Friday whatever the outcome, is that the answer to that question is never "Duesseldorf".
Or it's just about the weather.
Wouldn't deny that. I reckon magically making every day 5C warmer than last year's equivalent date would probably do more for national feel good factor than anything else. Funny thing is if you compare London and Melbourne's climate (rain fall is very similar) that's not far off.
Chatting last night to my IoW aunt about summer holiday plans. She has to the best of my knowledge never left the UK, C1 turned housewife turned granny turned widow. Voting Remain - because that is what her husband would have wanted. Remain win Wight from beyond the grave...
IoW will be at least 60% Leave IMHO.
Jesting aside, I think the Caulkheads and Overners will both go for Leave. Wight is my tip for highest Leave vote in the Ladbrokes market. The age, SE class and occupational pointers are all heavily for Leave.
On the other hand my Aunt is very capable of persuasion, and a very social pillar of the community.
My money would be on somewhere in Lincolnshire, probably Boston. The tourist trade and trend to retire there give the IOW a bit more of a mixed make-up than is my impression of the Lincs coast. Plus the island hasn't really had significant EU immigration and isn't likely to get any.
It might be just my limited experience, but every South African I've ever met or known has been right of centre.
What gets me about South Africans is that they are so appallingly racist and right wing- they just take it for granted that you share the same values because you are white. Boris would be OK with them because apparently in private he is completely off the radar.
Oddly enough, most white South Africans will have spent more time working and living with blacks than you ever will. You're just revealing yourself as stereotypically dim and one eyed. Again.
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's more a prediction than a poll result.
Also quite different from ICM, who basically found it all too stressful and gave up.
My favourite ICM was the 14pt gap between phone/online - both conducted to the same methodology.
I'd retreat from the field too, rather than get sucked into a high stakes reputation gamble.
I don't know why we don't have a pollster like that bloke who makes up the weather stories for the Daily Express, with an office staffed by Russian webcam 'lovelies'. You never know, it might just help with the problem of non-responders and end up more accurate!
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's more a prediction than a poll result.
Also quite different from ICM, who basically found it all too stressful and gave up.
My favourite ICM was the 14pt gap between phone/online - both conducted to the same methodology.
I'd retreat from the field too, rather than get sucked into a high stakes reputation gamble.
Quite. Imagine being one of their large corporate clients for market research, waking up to see that they did two polls on a yes/no question and got a 14% difference. I'd think they were snake oil salesmen.
As others have noted, the big research firms do political polls for the media because it sells their brand, they don't make a lot of money on it.
The negative for the pollster is that we can all see what the actual result of the election/referendum was and rate the pollsters accordingly, being bottom of that table probably costs serious business from the corporate clients.
I'm finding it mentally very hard to see a "remain" win in Sunderland. Obviously it's ultimately not relevant because if Islington was counting first I couldn't see a "leave" win there.
But Sunderland is a solid Labour area (And I expect Tory areas to be quite pro Brexit as well as "old Labour" places) - which means the pool of "remain" reservoirs is strictly smaller than the Lib Dem + Labour + SNP + Sinn Fein constituencies at the GE.
It's this cognitive dissonance that makes me think "leave" probably wins.
Remain don't need to win Sunderland do they? a narrow loss points towards them winning overall.
Anything over 40% in sunderland probably has remain on track
hmmm Remain need to be closer than that.
I think the par result for Sunderland is 52/48 LEAVE IIRC.
Does anyone know of a "par" spreadsheet for the count IE if was 50/50 overall we expect in area X remain would get 51% Leave 49 in area Z remain get 49% Leave 51 % etc,
Watching the debate last night, my wife, an undecided, could not stand Ruth Davidson.
Davidson was shouty and calling the other side liers, the sort of thing that puts many people off, especially women.
We had to turn it off.
Plus Davidson was obviously Scottish which might put a lot of English off.
Was the choice of Davidson a mistake by REMAIN?
I don't think so. Personally I thought she was excellent, compassionate, quick witted and an air of not suffering fools, though I rated Stuart higher as, though more understated, she had an easier case to make and did it well.
Several people have said they were put off by Davidson, but even so I doubt it was a mistake to put her on - in a debate it's very hard for Remain to win as they have to defend the undefendeable about the EU at some point (no one likes red tape etc, and immigration is a toxic subject for them), but in terms of making a passionat argument for remain, compared to the last debate analysis at least, she did a better job.
She even attempted, boldly if a little too ambitiously, to argue we make the EU work for us, rather than in general get dictated to and forced into things. Which is a positive message even.
She gave it a good go, and on balance probably played better with more than she played badly.
@rcs1000 Don't go down that route. The little Englanders threaten to cut off London's water supplies* and its food supplies.
* I assume they intend to dam the Thames and flood Hampshire in order to do this.
No worries, we can have Brighton and the M23 corridor. A kind of europhile Caprivi Strip.
And you are going to import all the things you need and export what you make through Brighton Marina?
Meanwhile, just about everything you do and need must cross or come from a foreign country. I am not sure London would stay rich for long.
Indeed. After all, Switzerland became rich originally not through finance, watches or cuckoo clocks, but first by robbing travellers through the Alps which through time transformed into 'protection' payments and then tolls on travelers and goods.
Cameron and Osborne have made some very big claims of how wonderful everything is going to be from staying in the EU.
There's a lot to live up to.
It seems highly likely that we will or at very least not the sort of growth Osborne (sorry OBR) are predicting.
The net effect of this referendum has been to damage a lot of reputation / make people hostage to fortune. Corbyn's non-campaign certainly not done him any harm, as nobody will really remember anything he said or did during this referendum, and his words have all been well lets stay, but the EU is still shit and needs to be reformed and the Tories, the Tories, the Tories.
After a breakfast meeting, I have scrolled back on this article's comments for two hours worth and not noticed much, if any response from REMAIN people to disagree with Tissue Price's article and to explain why. I may have missed some fundamental points from REMAIN supporters so could they please recap their contrary view or do they all agree with TP?
TC- this is the reply I gave to Casino earlier, and you would probably class me as remainiac
"Casino- rest assured Europhilia is going to kicked into the long grass for a long, long time after tomorrow.
Tissue Price is probably right...the EU will unravel in due course. But you know the markets more than most. If we jump first, the markets will punish us, severely. If we stay in and wait, we will likely be the beneficiaries of an EU implosion."
And my reply was that, even if he is right, these things typically play out over a much longer timescale than the doom-mongers predict. This may therefore be an issue for the younger generation rather than ours...
Ian B2 and Tyson. Thank you for your views. Ian B2 - I agree that it is difficult to predict when the EU unravels. Tyson - history in the form of leaving the ERM and staying out of the euro shows that the markets did not punish us - they actually rewarded us through higher growth (than the ERM/Eurozone).
Which does lead to the question of why go now? I believe that we would get a first country benefit in realigning ourselves to the realities of the global world than this illusion of a protected trade block with its burdensome overheads. It takes time to change and my experience in companies and change, is that the company that makes changes with an eye to improving its competitiveness at its own pace, rather than having to violently respond to outside forces, will emerge healthier and have a better chance of survival.
Trouble is, economically and especially politically, there is a huge difference between actively making something happen, and responding to events. The political and economic/financial climate, both here and in Europe, remain immensely fragile - far more so than most people realise, since in the absence of dramatic events the person in the street thinks the 2008 problems have largely gone away - whereas the sad truth is that next to nothing has actually changed, and some things are actually worse.
Even a vote for Brexit could easily turn out to be the first domino....
Watching the debate last night, my wife, an undecided, could not stand Ruth Davidson.
Davidson was shouty and calling the other side liers, the sort of thing that puts many people off, especially women.
We had to turn it off.
Plus Davidson was obviously Scottish which might put a lot of English off.
Was the choice of Davidson a mistake by REMAIN?
I don't think so. Personally I thought she was excellent, compassionate, quick witted and an air of not suffering fools, though I rated Stuart higher as, though more understated, she had an easier case to make and did it well.
Several people have said they were put off by Davidson, but even so I doubt it was a mistake to put her on - in a debate it's very hard for Remain to win as they have to defend the undefendeable about the EU at some point (no one likes red tape etc, and immigration is a toxic subject for them), but in terms of making a passionat argument for remain, compared to the last debate analysis at least, she did a better job.
She even attempted, boldly if a little too ambitiously, to argue we make the EU work for us, rather than in general get dictated to and forced into things. Which is a positive message even.
She gave it a good go, and on balance probably played better with more than she played badly.
I don't think the venue helped, it was too big and women's voices don't carry the way men's do. Frances O'Grady was particularly shrill.
James O'Brien, the arch-leftie on LBC, thinks Ruth Davidson enhanced her reputation last night and also Andrea Leadsom!!! The only time I have ever agreed with him.
Two journalists who have gone way down in my estimation are Dan Hodges and Faisal Islam.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's more a prediction than a poll result.
Also quite different from ICM, who basically found it all too stressful and gave up.
My favourite ICM was the 14pt gap between phone/online - both conducted to the same methodology.
I'd retreat from the field too, rather than get sucked into a high stakes reputation gamble.
Quite. Imagine being one of their large corporate clients for market research, waking up to see that they did two polls on a yes/no question and got a 14% difference. I'd think they were snake oil salesmen.
As others have noted, the big research firms do political polls for the media because it sells their brand, they don't make a lot of money on it.
The negative for the pollster is that we can all see what the actual result of the election/referendum was and rate the pollsters accordingly, being bottom of that table probably costs serious business from the corporate clients.
This has to be the nightmare event from hell for the pollsters coming straight after last year's events.
True they weren't bad in the locals, but who's going to remember that if you get "the big one" wrong in a serious fashion on Thursday. Herding (even if unintentional) is no good really after last year's fiasco if they all get it wrong, and even getting it damn near bang on and predicting 51-49 doesn't look good if it's actually 49-51.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
If we vote Leave can you fuck off to France please? They are much more tolerant than us I guess.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
Calling someone who votes leave a racist I think says a lot more about you (intolerent, unable to be polite in civilised company) than it does about the person who voted leave..
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's more a prediction than a poll result.
Also quite different from ICM, who basically found it all too stressful and gave up.
My favourite ICM was the 14pt gap between phone/online - both conducted to the same methodology.
I'd retreat from the field too, rather than get sucked into a high stakes reputation gamble.
Quite. Imagine being one of their large corporate clients for market research, waking up to see that they did two polls on a yes/no question and got a 14% difference. I'd think they were snake oil salesmen.
As others have noted, the big research firms do political polls for the media because it sells their brand, they don't make a lot of money on it.
The negative for the pollster is that we can all see what the actual result of the election/referendum was and rate the pollsters accordingly, being bottom of that table probably costs serious business from the corporate clients.
The Dave Gorman take down of YouGov panel is both very funny and also enlightening. Using their own data against them, he shows that the focus group of people and their beliefs that YouGov use to sell to corporate clients is total BS e.g. Those that like Ant compared to Dec have radically different political views, when in reality most people still ask which one is Ant and which one is Dec.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
If I saw my vote as an endorsement of a campaign I would not vote. I expected better from the Remain campaign than the "don't be silly, nanny knows best" or "be afraid" arguments. Totally off-putting.
The ORB poll shows a big increase of the young in certainty to vote fro 30% too 50% and big fall in 65+ showing a fall to 60%. Will that be likely to happen?
No.
What result are you expecting at the moment, David?
A very close one.
To be honest, I've barely been at all involved directly in the campaign so all my information is second hand - polls, reports and so on.
However, it seems extraordinary that one group that has consistently had the highest turnout in its class should slump and that the group consistently bottom should surge. I don't see any good reason why the turnout stats should differ greatly from the general profile. It is possible that there might be a higher than usual number of young, who tend to do politics more as single-issue campaigns than through parties, and of DE voters who normally feel excluded from the debate. If it happens though, I'd anticipate the effects to be small (and self-cancelling anyway).
Do I worry that the polls are clustering again? Yes. I wouldn't rule out a fairly comfortable win - 55%+ - one way or the other simply because the pollsters have little track record to model on and I worry that the spread has reduced for similar reasons that they all got it wrong last May. So while I do think it'll be close, that comes with a sizable margin of error. The betting markets, which seem to be implying about a 54-46 result for Remain, might be right but might also be a *long* way out.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
If I saw my vote as an endorsement of a campaign I would not vote. I expected better from the Remain campaign than the "don't be silly, nanny knows best" or "be afraid" arguments. Totally off-putting.
I am still waiting for the trash talking to stop and the serious grown up debate about the pros and cons to start...
Watching the debate last night, my wife, an undecided, could not stand Ruth Davidson.
Davidson was shouty and calling the other side liers, the sort of thing that puts many people off, especially women.
We had to turn it off.
Plus Davidson was obviously Scottish which might put a lot of English off.
Was the choice of Davidson a mistake by REMAIN?
I don't think so. Personally I thought she was excellent, compassionate, quick witted and an air of not suffering fools, though I rated Stuart higher as, though more understated, she had an easier case to make and did it well.
Several people have said they were put off by Davidson, but even so I doubt it was a mistake to put her on - in a debate it's very hard for Remain to win as they have to defend the undefendeable about the EU at some point (no one likes red tape etc, and immigration is a toxic subject for them), but in terms of making a passionat argument for remain, compared to the last debate analysis at least, she did a better job.
She even attempted, boldly if a little too ambitiously, to argue we make the EU work for us, rather than in general get dictated to and forced into things. Which is a positive message even.
She gave it a good go, and on balance probably played better with more than she played badly.
I don't think the venue helped, it was too big and women's voices don't carry the way men's do. Frances O'Grady was particularly shrill.
James O'Brien, the arch-leftie on LBC, thinks Ruth Davidson enhanced her reputation last night and also Andrea Leadsom!!! The only time I have ever agreed with him.
Two journalists who have gone way down in my estimation are Dan Hodges and Faisal Islam.
I found Ruth too much, too shouty and too finger pointy. She's a Tory version of Sturgeon. I don't like that style of behaviour myself.
Kahn is a playground clever dick. If O'Grady has more voice coaching/talked from her chest instead of her throat - she'd be a lot better.
That's a very interesting piece, with some useful snippets on how they think voters will behave.
It's worth noting, though, that their 54/46 final figure is based on the assumption that Don't Knows will split towards Remain by a factor of 3 to 1. That seems very high to me.
It's more a prediction than a poll result.
Also quite different from ICM, who basically found it all too stressful and gave up.
My favourite ICM was the 14pt gap between phone/online - both conducted to the same methodology.
I'd retreat from the field too, rather than get sucked into a high stakes reputation gamble.
Yougov IMHO have put the most effort into changing their polling systems to get a more accurate result. Even giving the impression that Stephan Shakespeare replaced Peter Kellner at the helm of its political polling.
John Major today accused Brexiteers of being "gravediggers of prosperity"
Might just file that one away for a rainy day
The ERM Repossession PM.
Another person who has completely trashed their reputation IMO.
Major and Blair turning up in NI was terrible.
For both men the NI peace deal was an outstanding achievement of their time in office, yet they threw away massive amounts of goodwill by basically threatening a return to the Troubles if we vote Leave.
Why on Earth did anyone think that was a good idea, it was the lowest moment of a very low campaign.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
Calling someone who votes leave a racist I think says a lot more about you (intolerent, unable to be polite in civilised company) than it does about the person who voted leave..
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
As I said yesterday, this is about the most stupid meme in existence. If all ideas espoused by any evil or nasty person were to become untouchable by association, it would not be acceptable to hold any decent or good idea. It is a world in which, essentially, no idea is acceptable.
So, because a racist person gives money to St Jude's, we are all supposed to stop giving money to St Jude's ...
At the risk of seeming really stupid could someone provide a quick summary, I think I get it but I am not sure !! Thank you
The column to focus on is the "Gap" which is Hanretty's estimate of the lead Remain will have in each local authority, if the overall result is a tie.
It's a bit confusing that he hasn't stripped out don't knows; I asked him on Twitter how he'd apportion them and he said 50-50 so the gaps should stay fairly similar (actually a slight trending towards 0).
Chris Hanretty's spreadsheet I'm finding hard to reconcile with a 50-50 result.
Average Local authority %42
Local authorities above 50% 65 Local authorities below 50% 313
Northern Ireland NA, Gibraltar NA (This adds ~ 0.6% to remain by my workings)
The Remain and Leave figures don't add to 100% (don't knows?), but I make it that he has 128 areas with Remain in front and 247 with Leave in front and 3 ties (to 1 dp). Remain's local authorities are probably bigger and potentially more Remain that Leave areas are for leave.
I'm finding it mentally very hard to see a "remain" win in Sunderland. Obviously it's ultimately not relevant because if Islington was counting first I couldn't see a "leave" win there.
But Sunderland is a solid Labour area (And I expect Tory areas to be quite pro Brexit as well as "old Labour" places) - which means the pool of "remain" reservoirs is strictly smaller than the Lib Dem + Labour + SNP + Sinn Fein constituencies at the GE.
It's this cognitive dissonance that makes me think "leave" probably wins.
Remain don't need to win Sunderland do they? a narrow loss points towards them winning overall.
Anything over 40% in sunderland probably has remain on track
hmmm Remain need to be closer than that.
I think the par result for Sunderland is 52/48 LEAVE IIRC.
Does anyone know of a "par" spreadsheet for the count IE if was 50/50 overall we expect in area X remain would get 51% Leave 49 in area Z remain get 49% Leave 51 % etc,
The ORB poll shows a big increase of the young in certainty to vote fro 30% too 50% and big fall in 65+ showing a fall to 60%. Will that be likely to happen?
No.
What result are you expecting at the moment, David?
A very close one.
To be honest, I've barely been at all involved directly in the campaign so all my information is second hand - polls, reports and so on.
However, it seems extraordinary that one group that has consistently had the highest turnout in its class should slump and that the group consistently bottom should surge. I don't see any good reason why the turnout stats should differ greatly from the general profile. It is possible that there might be a higher than usual number of young, who tend to do politics more as single-issue campaigns than through parties, and of DE voters who normally feel excluded from the debate. If it happens though, I'd anticipate the effects to be small (and self-cancelling anyway).
Do I worry that the polls are clustering again? Yes. I wouldn't rule out a fairly comfortable win - 55%+ - one way or the other simply because the pollsters have little track record to model on and I worry that the spread has reduced for similar reasons that they all got it wrong last May. So while I do think it'll be close, that comes with a sizable margin of error. The betting markets, which seem to be implying about a 54-46 result for Remain, might be right but might also be a *long* way out.
That's a fair summary. No one really knows what will happen.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
If we vote Leave can you fuck off to France please? They are much more tolerant than us I guess.
Talking about France, have you seen operation croissant - how wonderful, offering help in our hour of darkness, the French (not sure TSE would agree...) bring lightness & love.
@rcs1000 Don't go down that route. The little Englanders threaten to cut off London's water supplies* and its food supplies.
* I assume they intend to dam the Thames and flood Hampshire in order to do this.
No worries, we can have Brighton and the M23 corridor. A kind of europhile Caprivi Strip.
And you are going to import all the things you need and export what you make through Brighton Marina?
Meanwhile, just about everything you do and need must cross or come from a foreign country. I am not sure London would stay rich for long.
Pretty sure there's a port of london.
Finding it amongst the trendy wine bars, artisan cafes and chic penthouses might be tricky.
Well there used to be, is there still a Port of London Authority? Even if the London docks could be recreated they are still a long way from the sea and the bit of the river between the state of Greater London and the sea would be owned by a foreign country. Furthermore one of the reasons that the London Docks declined was they could not take modern ships, especially container ships. So one way or another every imported into or exported from the new city state is going to be much more expensive.
John Major today accused Brexiteers of being "gravediggers of prosperity"
Might just file that one away for a rainy day
The ERM Repossession PM.
LOL! I think we're all supposed to have forgotten about the events of September 1992...
It's interesting that it's become linked with repossessions in folklore.
The house price crash following the Lawson boom happened well before Black Wednesday, and the immediate effect of leaving the ERM was a rapid drop in interest rates.
In 1997 we had stable, affordable prices, and a certain Gordon Brown promised that he would not let house prices get out of control and put the stability of the economy at risk.
John Major today accused Brexiteers of being "gravediggers of prosperity"
Might just file that one away for a rainy day
The ERM Repossession PM.
Another person who has completely trashed their reputation IMO.
Major and Blair turning up in NI was terrible.
For both men the NI peace deal was an outstanding achievement of their time in office, yet they threw away massive amounts of goodwill by basically threatening a return to the Troubles if we vote Leave.
Why on Earth did anyone think that was a good idea, it was the lowest moment of a very low campaign.
Totally agree, this isn't paper tiger politicking for NI residents.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
As I said yesterday, this is about the most stupid meme in existence. If all ideas espoused by any evil or nasty person were to become untouchable by association, it would not be acceptable to hold any decent or good idea. It is a world in which, essentially, no idea is acceptable.
So, because a racist person gives money to St Jude's, we are all supposed to stop giving money to St Jude's ...
Roger, you are capable of thinking, so think.
Hmmm...although St Judes's might accept the donation from the racist it doesn't mean they should run a racist fundraising campaign.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
As I said yesterday, this is about the most stupid meme in existence. If all ideas espoused by any evil or nasty person were to become untouchable by association, it would not be acceptable to hold any decent or good idea. It is a world in which, essentially, no idea is acceptable.
So, because a racist person gives money to St Jude's, we are all supposed to stop giving money to St Jude's ...
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
If we vote Leave can you fuck off to France please? They are much more tolerant than us I guess.
Talking about France, have you seen operation croissant - how wonderful, offering help in our hour of darkness, the French (not sure TSE would agree...) bring lightness & love.
What's operation croissant? Sounds a bit flakey to me.
Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, all lining up against the UK and for the EU.
It shows clearly how poorly we have been served since Thatcher left. Even pre-Labour PMs cared about Britain and her people.
Project terror will probably work in winning this for Remain, but those votes will come accompanied with resentment and won't endear a majority of people to the EU.
At 0 gap .... Broxtowe At -2.5 gap (Average for the sheet) ... Coventry (-2.6) (Level for the UK excl NI & GB ?) At -3.0 gap (Rutland (-2.9) Brexit factoring in NI, ex-pats and Gib.
Chatting last night to my IoW aunt about summer holiday plans. She has to the best of my knowledge never left the UK, C1 turned housewife turned granny turned widow. Voting Remain - because that is what her husband would have wanted. Remain win Wight from beyond the grave...
IoW will be at least 60% Leave IMHO.
Jesting aside, I think the Caulkheads and Overners will both go for Leave. Wight is my tip for highest Leave vote in the Ladbrokes market. The age, SE class and occupational pointers are all heavily for Leave.
On the other hand my Aunt is very capable of persuasion, and a very social pillar of the community.
My money would be on somewhere in Lincolnshire, probably Boston. The tourist trade and trend to retire there give the IOW a bit more of a mixed make-up than is my impression of the Lincs coast. Plus the island hasn't really had significant EU immigration and isn't likely to get any.
I know the IoW fairly well. There are some wealthy retirees in Bembridge, Seaview and Yarmouth but these are far outweighed by low income retirees from more working class backgrounds in London or the Midlands. What little work there is for locals is low income and largely low skill in the tourist, agricultural and nursing home sectors. The maritime industries tend to be pro-Leave too. There are some commuters to the mainland but mostly because it is far cheaper than Hampshire. East Wight is particularly popular with retired matelots from Portsmouth. Islanders are particularly insular and do not like change.
After a breakfast meeting, I have scrolled back on this article's comments for two hours worth and not noticed much, if any response from REMAIN people to disagree with Tissue Price's article and to explain why. I may have missed some fundamental points from REMAIN supporters so could they please recap their contrary view or do they all agree with TP?
.....Tissue Price is probably right...the EU will unravel in due course......"
And my reply was that, even if he is right, these things typically play out over a much longer timescale than the doom-mongers predict. This may therefore be an issue for the younger generation rather than ours...
Ian B2 and Tyson. Thank you for your views. Ian B2 - I agree that it is difficult to predict when the EU unravels. Tyson - history in the form of leaving the ERM and staying out of the euro shows that the markets did not punish us - they actually rewarded us through higher growth (than the ERM/Eurozone).
Which does lead to the question of why go now? I believe that we would get a first country benefit in realigning ourselves to the realities of the global world than this illusion of a protected trade block with its burdensome overheads. It takes time to change and my experience in companies and change, is that the company that makes changes with an eye to improving its competitiveness at its own pace, rather than having to violently respond to outside forces, will emerge healthier and have a better chance of survival.
Trouble is, economically and especially politically, there is a huge difference between actively making something happen, and responding to events. The political and economic/financial climate, both here and in Europe, remain immensely fragile - far more so than most people realise, since in the absence of dramatic events the person in the street thinks the 2008 problems have largely gone away - whereas the sad truth is that next to nothing has actually changed, and some things are actually worse.
Even a vote for Brexit could easily turn out to be the first domino....
I would of course agree that the picture is fragile. An organisation that allows problems to fester and pile up sows the seeds of its eventual demise. I prefer an organisation taking some prudent actions to tackle its problems even if its just one problem fixed at a time. For the EU the fundamental problems are just kicked into the long grass and they hope something turns up to fix it.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
Your logic simply doesn't work; how do you know how 'happy' LEAVE voters are?
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
Calling someone who votes leave a racist I think says a lot more about you (intolerent, unable to be polite in civilised company) than it does about the person who voted leave..
He's not calling Leave voter racists.
To be blunt he is. Roger is telling people to vote Remain not because Remain have won the argument but because a few people campaigning for Leave have used racist arguments... And because one person used a racist argument the entire campaign is contaminated by it
Labour have spent decades saying you can't say that (insert statement) its racist. That cut down all argument discussion and police investigations into child abuse and rape in Rochdale and Bradford... I'm merely applying the same logic to Roger's utterly insane argument....
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
If we vote Leave can you fuck off to France please? They are much more tolerant than us I guess.
Talking about France, have you seen operation croissant - how wonderful, offering help in our hour of darkness, the French (not sure TSE would agree...) bring lightness & love.
What's operation croissant? Sounds a bit flakey to me.
They are just trying to butter us up, because of the jam we are in.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
If we vote Leave can you fuck off to France please? They are much more tolerant than us I guess.
Hopefully, this is not the country we will become once Leave have won.
The damage is done. Basing a campaign on an overtly racist premise doesn't mean everyone who supports LEAVE is a racist but it does mean they've been happy to give their support to a racist campaign. .....
Project terror will probably work in winning this for Remain, but those votes will come accompanied with resentment and won't endear a majority of people to the EU.
Personally I dont believe the polls - and looking at the Remain campaign, I am only reminded of the slightly desperate campaign of Ed Miliband & surreal comedy of Gordon Brown trying to get away from the Elvis impersonator.
That aside, I have no crystal ball and the polls are MoE 50/50. Betting odds dont reflect that and offer excellent value for the punter, all funded by large unexplained Remain bets.
Personally, I make no predictions, except the EU will fall and Cameron is finished with the Conservatives.
Comments
Don't know why. I quite like Germany.
Racists 47% Waycists 53%
But the world will keep on turning anyway.
On the subject of invasions why do people forget Flodden Field? When Mr G's mates invaded England with an army of around 40,000. The Duke of Surrey rounded up half a dozen locals armed with toothbrushes and gave them a good hiding. James IV - The last British monarch to die in battle.
I admit to not being an historian.
1) Yes, naturally the population movements are greater to a (currently) more successful economy within the EU. And naturally people want to move out of relatively poorer countries regardless of whether that's down to the baleful effects of the EZ or the legacy of Communism.
2) Large though they are, the population movements within the EU don't come close to offsetting the internal structural imbalance caused by giving Berlin the same interest rates as Berlin. Hence all the unemployment, and hence why fiscal transfers are required if the Euro is to succeed.
3) You are of course right that the same argument can be applied at a worldwide level. All the EU does is put up the border at a different location [so Remainers should spare us the Stronger Together stuff unless they're in favour of free movement from e.g. Africa - which is a perfectly coherent and respectable position to hold].
4) Migration will continue to happen - I happen to think we have a duty to limit it. It's essentially a middle class racket whereby our middle classes import the would-be middle classes [it's the most dynamic who migrate] from poorer countries to supplant our own working class. It's a very tricky argument though: God knows I'd probably be a migrant if I'd been born in Timisoara or Addis Ababa.
If Leave win, putting Jeremy Corbyn in place will be her biggest political legacy.
But no London is a cancer, it sucks the country dry, it takes all the resources etc etc. The main problem is that most people are ignorant to economics and don't understand growth. People naturally believe in the Lump of labour fallacy and other forms of zero sum trade offs.
They believe if someone has more it must mean they have less because of that. So believe protectionism will make them richer, or that more state spending will make there are richer etc etc.
So London has got richer and richer in recent decades, and the World has come to party with all those evil foreign millionaires paying too much for property and expensive food and all those glamorous parties etc etc. Meanwhile out in the provinces high flying careers are thin on the ground people have to live much less flashier lives than in 'London'. Manufacturing seems to have gone (not really, it's upskilled and only employs engineers and very few semi skilled people anymore).
The imbalance between London and the rest of the country is a problem, but only in the political resentments it breeds. The country decided London was growing too much before and brought in things like the green belt and then national planning to depopulate London and force businesses out of the Capital.
It may have achieved some of it's objectives (Harlow, Stevenage and Basildon), but at a considerable cost. Business were forced to operate in sub optimal locations, making them more inefficient either through split locations or to avoid that fate low growth. London GDP grew less and some areas grew faster, what was ignored was that we grew slower overall as a result.
Modern economies depend on agglomeration factors more than others. Or the network effect. We thought the modern economy would send people fleeing to small towns and low cost places. It has not worked out that way,wealth and growth is rushing to large population centres with large and deep educated workforces, London's commuter zone encompenses nearly 18 million people, it's the biggest in Europe if you want a big choice of rare talents then you need a market big enough to support an industry large enough that many firms can employ them and a healthy market place develop.
It turns out that the problem is that it's not that London it too large it is that Britain's 2nd tier cities are too small. We industrialised first in the early steam period around many quite small towns, some of which later grew into largish cities, but more often than not lots of medium sized towns near each other but not one functioning network. Other countries industilised later and have fewer large towns but larger regional cities.
Basically Britain is missing a couple of large cites in the 2 to 4 million people range.
Hence the chancellors recent mission for Northern Powerhouse etc, and the creation of HS3 to build much faster commuter links between the Norths cities to expand commuter shed and deepen their labour pool.
It's smart politics in two ways. If done right, it will strengthen the Norths economies and help them to grow. A more balanced economy mean macro economic policy will more likely effect all parts of the country equally rather than the hot house conditions of one part.
When people see serious amounts of money being spent outside London (they don't see income transfers) on things like the High speed network and new commuter and light rail networks then they will be less resentful of the large amounts of money that needs to be spent on London's infrastructure and another crossrail won't even come close.
Davidson was shouty and calling the other side liers, the sort of thing that puts many people off, especially women.
We had to turn it off.
Plus Davidson was obviously Scottish which might put a lot of English off.
Was the choice of Davidson a mistake by REMAIN?
ENG opponents (playing Mon, note no change due to yesterday's action):
Hungary 51%, Iceland 22%, Austria 16%, Portugal 11%
WALES opponents (playing Sat):
Turkey 64%, NI 36%
NI opponents (Sun/Sat):
France 64%, Wales 36%
Finger in the air, I reckon possible referendum effects, relative to there being no football are about:
Feel good factor across Wales and NI from qualifying - 60000 transfers from Leave to Remain (0.2% nationally)
If Wales play Turkey - 60000 transfers Remain to Leave, mainly in Wales, neutralising the feel good.
If Wales play NI - 30000 transfers Leave to Remain, mainly in Wales, as NI situation on Brexit thought about and extra excitement. (0.1%)
For England, expectations merely met, so no innate feel good, but a Portugal game could get the dander up and drive 90000 transfers Leave to Remain. (0.3%) Every other draw is a bit meh.
Scotland, Remain 60000 votes (0.2%) down relative to no football.
So, effect of Euros, from 0.2% down to 0.4% up on the Remain vote total imho relative to no football, depending on today's results. And a swing of perhaps 2%+ positive for remain in Wales.
What needs to happen today (done from a Remain pov, but Leave is obviously the failure to meet these conditions).
For Wales to meet NI rather than Turkey (worth 0.3% to remain), the third place teams in groups E and F both need to qualify:
For group F this requires Portugal to at least draw with Hungary
For group E this requires either (a) an RoI victory over Italy or (b) for Sweden to beat Belgium but by fewer than 4 clear goals
For England to meet Portugal (worth 0.3% to remain):
(1) Portugal need to at least draw with Hungary
(2) Iceland need to get the same Win/Draw result as Portugal
(3) If a win, Iceland need to better Portugal's win result to consign them to second, if a draw Portugal need a higher scoring draw (ideally by 2) to edge out Iceland for second on goals scored
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/22/john-barnes-gove-says-voting-leave-wrong
I'll be satisfied I've done everything I could, although disappointed we lost.
I'd retreat from the field too, rather than get sucked into a high stakes reputation gamble.
And taking credit for Leave campaign success
Which does lead to the question of why go now? I believe that we would get a first country benefit in realigning ourselves to the realities of the global world than this illusion of a protected trade block with its burdensome overheads. It takes time to change and my experience in companies and change, is that the company that makes changes with an eye to improving its competitiveness at its own pace, rather than having to violently respond to outside forces, will emerge healthier and have a better chance of survival.
Might just file that one away for a rainy day
https://twitter.com/ThatMichaelW/status/745556392266739712
Meanwhile, just about everything you do and need must cross or come from a foreign country. I am not sure London would stay rich for long.
Finding it amongst the trendy wine bars, artisan cafes and chic penthouses might be tricky.
What if we vote remain and have a recession?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/vote-remain-still-recession/
Cameron and Osborne have made some very big claims of how wonderful everything is going to be from staying in the EU.
There's a lot to live up to.
As others have noted, the big research firms do political polls for the media because it sells their brand, they don't make a lot of money on it.
The negative for the pollster is that we can all see what the actual result of the election/referendum was and rate the pollsters accordingly, being bottom of that table probably costs serious business from the corporate clients.
Several people have said they were put off by Davidson, but even so I doubt it was a mistake to put her on - in a debate it's very hard for Remain to win as they have to defend the undefendeable about the EU at some point (no one likes red tape etc, and immigration is a toxic subject for them), but in terms of making a passionat argument for remain, compared to the last debate analysis at least, she did a better job.
She even attempted, boldly if a little too ambitiously, to argue we make the EU work for us, rather than in general get dictated to and forced into things. Which is a positive message even.
She gave it a good go, and on balance probably played better with more than she played badly.
Average Local authority %42
Local authorities above 50% 65
Local authorities below 50% 313
Northern Ireland NA, Gibraltar NA (This adds ~ 0.6% to remain by my workings)
The net effect of this referendum has been to damage a lot of reputation / make people hostage to fortune. Corbyn's non-campaign certainly not done him any harm, as nobody will really remember anything he said or did during this referendum, and his words have all been well lets stay, but the EU is still shit and needs to be reformed and the Tories, the Tories, the Tories.
Even a vote for Brexit could easily turn out to be the first domino....
James O'Brien, the arch-leftie on LBC, thinks Ruth Davidson enhanced her reputation last night and also Andrea Leadsom!!! The only time I have ever agreed with him.
Two journalists who have gone way down in my estimation are Dan Hodges and Faisal Islam.
We'll all know much more about our neigbours than we do at the moment and by the same token the rest of the world will know much more about us.
True they weren't bad in the locals, but who's going to remember that if you get "the big one" wrong in a serious fashion on Thursday. Herding (even if unintentional) is no good really after last year's fiasco if they all get it wrong, and even getting it damn near bang on and predicting 51-49 doesn't look good if it's actually 49-51.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/glastonbury-2016-wednesday---festival-goers-arrive-on-site-and-i/
https://mobile.twitter.com/GlastoFest/status/745551595639758848?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Thank you
Average LEAVE % 44%
Average DK % 15%
That gives all councils equal weight. I think it's close enough.
Just a guess
To be honest, I've barely been at all involved directly in the campaign so all my information is second hand - polls, reports and so on.
However, it seems extraordinary that one group that has consistently had the highest turnout in its class should slump and that the group consistently bottom should surge. I don't see any good reason why the turnout stats should differ greatly from the general profile. It is possible that there might be a higher than usual number of young, who tend to do politics more as single-issue campaigns than through parties, and of DE voters who normally feel excluded from the debate. If it happens though, I'd anticipate the effects to be small (and self-cancelling anyway).
Do I worry that the polls are clustering again? Yes. I wouldn't rule out a fairly comfortable win - 55%+ - one way or the other simply because the pollsters have little track record to model on and I worry that the spread has reduced for similar reasons that they all got it wrong last May. So while I do think it'll be close, that comes with a sizable margin of error. The betting markets, which seem to be implying about a 54-46 result for Remain, might be right but might also be a *long* way out.
Kahn is a playground clever dick. If O'Grady has more voice coaching/talked from her chest instead of her throat - she'd be a lot better.
For both men the NI peace deal was an outstanding achievement of their time in office, yet they threw away massive amounts of goodwill by basically threatening a return to the Troubles if we vote Leave.
Why on Earth did anyone think that was a good idea, it was the lowest moment of a very low campaign.
So, because a racist person gives money to St Jude's, we are all supposed to stop giving money to St Jude's ...
Roger, you are capable of thinking, so think.
It's a bit confusing that he hasn't stripped out don't knows; I asked him on Twitter how he'd apportion them and he said 50-50 so the gaps should stay fairly similar (actually a slight trending towards 0).
Brexit will cause the EU fall, but then EU is a house of cards. It was always going to fall. Better we are not underneath when it happens.
Thank you
I feel so patriotic now
It shows clearly how poorly we have been served since Thatcher left. Even pre-Labour PMs cared about Britain and her people.
The house price crash following the Lawson boom happened well before Black Wednesday, and the immediate effect of leaving the ERM was a rapid drop in interest rates.
In 1997 we had stable, affordable prices, and a certain Gordon Brown promised that he would not let house prices get out of control and put the stability of the economy at risk.
At 0 gap .... Broxtowe
At -2.5 gap (Average for the sheet) ... Coventry (-2.6) (Level for the UK excl NI & GB ?)
At -3.0 gap (Rutland (-2.9) Brexit factoring in NI, ex-pats and Gib.
It is the perfect storm for A high Leave vote.
Labour have spent decades saying you can't say that (insert statement) its racist. That cut down all argument discussion and police investigations into child abuse and rape in Rochdale and Bradford... I'm merely applying the same logic to Roger's utterly insane argument....
Tens of thousands of young people missing out on voting in the referendum?
Does this muddy the waters?
U2: 'Europe without Britain would be unimaginable' - Rock stars U2 have waded into the EU referendum debate by declaring: "Don't go - we'd miss you."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1321570/jihadist-preacher-anjem-choudary-backs-remain-because-eu-stops-unfair-deportations/
That aside, I have no crystal ball and the polls are MoE 50/50. Betting odds dont reflect that and offer excellent value for the punter, all funded by large unexplained Remain bets.
Personally, I make no predictions, except the EU will fall and Cameron is finished with the Conservatives.