''The expert Governor of the Bank of England was warning of rate rises if we voted to leave. We did so vote, and rates were cut. It took less than two months for his prediction to be proved 100% wrong.''
And that, my dear friends, is Richard Nabavi's version of being told 'the truth'.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
It is not complicated, they have a vote and there are a lot more of them, that's why you need to listen to the "uninformed" as you so charmingly describe them.
There are some who seem to believe that the "uninformed" should not have a vote. The definition of "uninformed" would seem to be anyone who disagrees with them.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
You are quite ignorant if you think everyone who backed Brexit isn't an expert.
I would say that outside of the old London County Council area, the "experts" (if we are using that term to mean senior professional and business people) were fairly evenly divided on the merits of Brexit and Remain.
Absolutely. If not leaning towards Brexit in the North West. Especially the "experts" of the North West outside of Manchester/Liverpool. It is socialist metropolitan cities that went heavily to Remain not "experts". I wonder if Mr Meeks is so quick to back socialism etc too for the same reason.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
You are quite ignorant if you think everyone who backed Brexit isn't an expert.
I would say that outside of the old London County Council area, the "experts" (if we are using that term to mean senior professional and business people) were fairly evenly divided on the merits of Brexit and Remain.
Absolutely. If not leaning towards Brexit in the North West. Especially the "experts" of the North West outside of Manchester/Liverpool. It is socialist metropolitan cities that went heavily to Remain not "experts". I wonder if Mr Meeks is so quick to back socialism etc too for the same reason.
Mr. Meeks, disliking an opinion is one thing. Refusing to speak to someone for holding it on a matter that splits the country 50/50 is crackers.
It would be like me and Mr. Eagles refusing to speak because he can't understand the most basic tenets of classical history.
Mr. B2, the general point (we haven't left yet so can't judge its impact) is fair, but Carney explicitly said rates would rise, and the reverse has occurred.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
It is not complicated, they have a vote and there are a lot more of them, that's why you need to listen to the "uninformed" as you so charmingly describe them.
There are some who seem to believe that the "uninformed" should not have a vote. The definition of "uninformed" would seem to be anyone who disagrees with them.
I've stated many times the vote should be restricted to those who have been privately educated and/or are net contributors to the Exchequer.
Quite an interesting email reply from a contituent who voted for Yvette last time... [Corbyn] also appears to have been right many times in the past when others followed a more fashionable route."
Smart take there. For example, Corbyn said Venezuela would show the rest of Latin America what the alternative to neoliberal economics looked like. And he was right.
Anyway, good CBI industrial trends numbers. As @MaxPB has been saying for a while, it does look as though the short-term outlook is reasonably good.
Considering the downside risk of Brexit was meant to be front loaded in the short term with opportunities for Brexit in the long term do you start to regret some of what you said before the vote?
Mr. Meeks, disliking an opinion is one thing. Refusing to speak to someone for holding it on a matter that splits the country 50/50 is crackers.
It would be like me and Mr. Eagles refusing to speak because he can't understand the most basic tenets of classical history.
Mr. B2, the general point (we haven't left yet so can't judge its impact) is fair, but Carney explicitly said rates would rise, and the reverse has occurred.
Hopefully I'll finally educate during this stint as guest editor.
I've done a thread comparing Corbyn and the Corbynites to Hannibal.
And in another thread I compare Corbyn to Emperor Honorius and the sack of Rome. Theresa May as Alaric
Quite an interesting email reply from a contituent who voted for Yvette last time... [Corbyn] also appears to have been right many times in the past when others followed a more fashionable route."
Smart take there. For example, Corbyn said Venezuela would show the rest of Latin America what the alternative to neoliberal economics looked like. And he was right.
Be careful what you wish for, it may become true....
Mr. Eagles, Alaric was an interesting chap as, like other 'barbarians', he seemed to recognise destroying Rome utterly would be a shame.
Compare the discord Corbyn has now to the its near total absence during Hannibal decades leading an army composed of wildly varying groups, most of him didn't speak the same language.
"Howard Archer, chief UK economist at IHS Global Insight, says the better-than-expected CBI survey suggests the economy will grow in the third quarter."
Mr. Meeks, disliking an opinion is one thing. Refusing to speak to someone for holding it on a matter that splits the country 50/50 is crackers.
It would be like me and Mr. Eagles refusing to speak because he can't understand the most basic tenets of classical history.
Mr. B2, the general point (we haven't left yet so can't judge its impact) is fair, but Carney explicitly said rates would rise, and the reverse has occurred.
I suggest you are playing the old game of knocking down your own version of what he said - or you weren't paying that much attention in the first place.
Here is an item from the Telegraph in May with Carney's comments about interest rates and Brexit:
If you read it carefully, you will see that it is a lot more considered than the simplistic straw person the Brexiters are trying to knock down in here. He even, twice, discusses the possibility that rates may be reduced after a Brexit vote - including concluding that on balance an "out" vote would reduce the likelihood of rising rates.
''Mr. B2, the general point (we haven't left yet so can't judge its impact) is fair, but Carney explicitly said rates would rise, and the reverse has occurred. ''
Indeed, Mr B2 made a much more nuanced assessment of what might happen than Carney did!!
'I've just had to get my friend email her seating arrangement for a formal engagement this Saturday to ensure that I have not been inadvertently positioned next to any Brexit pillocks. Tories are OK, but Bexit, no way.'
Did she mention that she was too busy with the long list of people that have already asked not to be anywhere near you ?
I’ve got a Brexiter cousin to whom her daughter and offspring (all adults ..... apparently at any rate ......) are not speaking. It was amusing at first, but now she seemed, when I rang her the other night, to be getting upset. Since my cousin is in her early 90’s she doesn’t want any of her family to be “not speaking”!
That is very sad, Mr. Cole, but if people are "not speaking" because of a difference of opinion I think it says more about them and their attitudes to others. The referendum is irrelevant.
Yes, I think that's right. It's like marriages which seem to have broken down over how the toothpaste is squeezed. There's more to it than that.
My oldest friend (whose partner is Asian) once voted BNP. I winced and got over it. My parents were Tories, and surprised to find they'd raised a teenage Communist. They too got over it. Family and friends come first.
Genuinely surprised and very sorry to hear people have fallen out and worse over Brexit. Surely friendship and family is more important than that.
There's bit of a vacuum at the mo, hopefully things will get better when it's clearer what Brexit means, and when it's clear there is no revolution the remoaners will see they are being silly.
Mr. Meeks, disliking an opinion is one thing. Refusing to speak to someone for holding it on a matter that splits the country 50/50 is crackers.
It would be like me and Mr. Eagles refusing to speak because he can't understand the most basic tenets of classical history.
Mr. B2, the general point (we haven't left yet so can't judge its impact) is fair, but Carney explicitly said rates would rise, and the reverse has occurred.
Many opinions that we now consider odious in the extreme were previously held by a majority.
Leavers cannot demand that Remainers like them (or vice versa for that matter). For some Remainers, the act of voting Leave is going to be like sheepshagging - an appalling moral lapse that even if done by someone only once is going to have to be mentioned in the obituary. It's equally apparent that plenty of Leavers regard Remainers as treacherous degenerates.
As it happens, I'm putting together a thread on the divisions that the Brexit vote has given rise to. I hope that it will lead to lively debate.
Mr. G, when considering how the negotiations will go both the domestic situation and opening position of the EU must be considered.
May can get away with a middling option. If she went for a departure in name only, she'll be defenestrated.
I think the first thing to remember about these negotiations is... Everything you see in the papers is crap
There is literally no chance we won't leave the customs union. So, demands that we leave it are merely positioning.
Likewise, suggesting that we're not going to agree the free movement of goods between the EU and the UK and might go 'World Trade Organisation' are just posturing. It would be too damaging for either the UK or EU economies to go WTO. Companies supply chains don't change overnight; firms have multi-year supply contracts. Interjecting tariffs would be disastrous for a lot of businesses.
Surely leaving the customs union is an essential pre-requisite for signing trade agreements with other countries / blocs? Otherwise every deal the UK made would have to be subject to EU approval and potential veto?
in any case, even if it is initially a negotiating position, it has to be one the government is prepared to implement if necessary otherwise the other side won't take it seriously.
Well yes. We will be leaving the customs union. I think you misread my post.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
You are quite ignorant if you think everyone who backed Brexit isn't an expert.
I would say that outside of the old London County Council area, the "experts" (if we are using that term to mean senior professional and business people) were fairly evenly divided on the merits of Brexit and Remain.
Absolutely. If not leaning towards Brexit in the North West. Especially the "experts" of the North West outside of Manchester/Liverpool. It is socialist metropolitan cities that went heavily to Remain not "experts". I wonder if Mr Meeks is so quick to back socialism etc too for the same reason.
Surprisingly to me, several core cities voted Leave (eg Birmingham, Bradford, Sheffield, Nottingham), or only narrowly for Remain (Leeds, Newcastle) Inner London voted heavily for Remain, but Outer London only voted narrowly for Remain (and five boroughs voted Leave.)
The areas where Remain really racked up the votes were centres of government (Inner London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, non-Unionist Belfast) or cities with a very big university presence. Other big urban areas voted much more in line with the rest of the country.
Anyway, good CBI industrial trends numbers. As @MaxPB has been saying for a while, it does look as though the short-term outlook is reasonably good.
Considering the downside risk of Brexit was meant to be front loaded in the short term with opportunities for Brexit in the long term do you start to regret some of what you said before the vote?
No, of course not. What I said was that my take was that there was zero probability of a boost to the economy in the short to medium term (1 - 2 years), a 20% chance of no significant hit, a 20% chance of a serious hit comparable to 2008/9, and a 60% chance of a significant but not too serious a downturn. That remains my view, but it's far too early to say how things will turn out. Many people seem not to have noticed, or are deliberately ignoring, the fact that as yet we don't have much of a clue about what settlement we will reach with our EU friends, or even when we might know what settlement we will reach.
Anyway, good CBI industrial trends numbers. As @MaxPB has been saying for a while, it does look as though the short-term outlook is reasonably good.
Considering the downside risk of Brexit was meant to be front loaded in the short term with opportunities for Brexit in the long term do you start to regret some of what you said before the vote?
We haven't left the EU yet and we don't know what our terms of exit will look like. It is far too early to begin making judgements on the medium to long term picture.
Apart from the usual suspects, very few puerile faces on pbCOM today.
Is anyone else finding post Brexit social engagements awkward? I've just had to get my friend email her seating arrangement for a formal engagement this Saturday to ensure that I have not been inadvertently positioned next to any Brexit pillocks. Tories are OK, but Bexit, no way.
It's a good job I'm not single- the exclusion list for potential partners is growing- meat eaters (imagine kissing someone with a bit of bacon stuck in their teeth..... gross), right wing zealots, anyone who remotely thinks that the badger cull is acceptable, and the 52% who voted Brexit.....
Here's the thing: I don't think you really believe the stuff you write on pb.com, you are just venting from behind a screen, so I don't get offended by it.
Like Roger, I suspect in person you are polite and reasonable and wouldn't dare say what you say on here to their face, even if you vehemently disagreed with them.
You'd sit next to each other, it'd be fine, and you'd probably come back on here to vent after.
Mr. F, Leeds was practically a dead heat. I was a bit surprised by that, to be honest.
Mr. Meeks, there's a question whether those divisions have arisen or merely come out into the open, though.
Mr. B2, ah, cheers for that. Whilst I still think the cut was daft, I was probably conflating Osborne's utterances for Carney's, [perhaps forgivable given how much their views appeared to align in the campaign].
Mr. G, when considering how the negotiations will go both the domestic situation and opening position of the EU must be considered.
May can get away with a middling option. If she went for a departure in name only, she'll be defenestrated.
I think the first thing to remember about these negotiations is... Everything you see in the papers is crap
There is literally no chance we won't leave the customs union. So, demands that we leave it are merely positioning.
Likewise, suggesting that we're not going to agree the free movement of goods between the EU and the UK and might go 'World Trade Organisation' are just posturing. It would be too damaging for either the UK or EU economies to go WTO. Companies supply chains don't change overnight; firms have multi-year supply contracts. Interjecting tariffs would be disastrous for a lot of businesses.
Surely leaving the customs union is an essential pre-requisite for signing trade agreements with other countries / blocs? Otherwise every deal the UK made would have to be subject to EU approval and potential veto?
in any case, even if it is initially a negotiating position, it has to be one the government is prepared to implement if necessary otherwise the other side won't take it seriously.
Well yes. We will be leaving the customs union. I think you misread my post.
Turns out I did. Sorry.
There was a triple negative to navigate in fairness !
Genuinely surprised and very sorry to hear people have fallen out and worse over Brexit. Surely friendship and family is more important than that.
There's bit of a vacuum at the mo, hopefully things will get better when it's clearer what Brexit means, and when it's clear there is no revolution the remoaners will see they are being silly.
People do seem to have taken the vote very personally. A lot of Leavers give the impression that any ongoing worries about the potential downsides of the vote are attacks on them as individuals, while many Remainers cannot see beyond a Leave vote signalling ignorance and xenophobia. It's no way to ensure the best possible outcome. I hope you're right that this all gets worked through. It's not healthy.
I posted a few days ago that I thought that post-referendum fears over falling house prices might be overdone, and there's some evidence coming in to support that view, at least for the moment. Persimmon's figures today are really quite bullish, and support what other housebuilders have been saying.
I think the negativity after the vote has been massively overdone. Carney's rate cut feels like a huge overreaction now, I guess it was a case of being seen to be decisive. Hopefully they reverse it and rates start to rise.
My expectations of 0.2-0.3% growth for Q3 may end up being an underestimate.
I've yet to talk to anyone who thinks the interest rate cut is a good idea. Consensus is that it is perfectly designed to hurt banks without helping anyone. Then again, i do hang out with a lot of bankers...
(View is thatCarney felt he needed to be seen to do something rather than actually having any worthwhile ideas)
Why does the rate cut hurt the banks ?
I'd have thought hiking rates up to a 'historic norm' of 4% would be more damaging.
They're getting lots of el cheapo cash with QE anyhow.
Banks make money on the net interest spread. Most of them are paying virtually nothing to depositors already and so lowering the rate at which they can lend reduces their income at a time their fixed costs are ever increasing.
the "right" answer is, of course, fees for bank accounts but last time i suggested that @Cyclefree got uncommonly grumpy
Genuinely surprised and very sorry to hear people have fallen out and worse over Brexit. Surely friendship and family is more important than that.
Why are you surprised, there are an astounding number of small minded and petty people on both sides of this argument. Winning and losing seems to have brought out the worst in people.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
It is not complicated, they have a vote and there are a lot more of them, that's why you need to listen to the "uninformed" as you so charmingly describe them.
There are some who seem to believe that the "uninformed" should not have a vote. The definition of "uninformed" would seem to be anyone who disagrees with them.
I've stated many times the vote should be restricted to those who have been privately educated and/or are net contributors to the Exchequer.
Net contributors would seem to be the key point, Mr Eagles, as it would get rid of the Peter voting to rob Paul problem. However, that is not going to happen short of social/economic collapse and revolution leading to a dictatorship.
Personally, I agree with Dante that man can only be truly free under a monarchy (but with some constitutional constraint). My ideal would be, perhaps, the Constitution we had under Elizabeth I.
Mr. F, Leeds was practically a dead heat. I was a bit surprised by that, to be honest.
Mr. Meeks, there's a question whether those divisions have arisen or merely come out into the open, though.
Mr. B2, ah, cheers for that. Whilst I still think the cut was daft, I was probably conflating Osborne's utterances for Carney's, [perhaps forgivable given how much their views appeared to align in the campaign].
Mr. F, Leeds was practically a dead heat. I was a bit surprised by that, to be honest.
Mr. Meeks, there's a question whether those divisions have arisen or merely come out into the open, though.
Mr. B2, ah, cheers for that. Whilst I still think the cut was daft, I was probably conflating Osborne's utterances for Carney's, [perhaps forgivable given how much their views appeared to align in the campaign].
It's interesting that core cities that pretty much vote the same way in local and Parliamentary elections (solidly Labour, with a few Conservative, Lib Dem, and UKIP enclaves) split over Brexit.
''Many opinions that we now consider odious in the extreme were previously held by a majority''.
Sounds like we should ditch this 'democracy' lark....
Not at all. As a society we have to work these things through collectively. That means accepting that sometimes we collectively get these things wrong and have to rethink. We have taken false steps to both the left and to the right in the past (and wise steps to both the left and the right in the past). No doubt we shall make many more. But we make more wise decisions than bad decisions if we work collectively. And we can always seek to correct errors so far as possible in future.
One grievous mistake would not invalidate the system.
On the Smith supporters say he's catching up story, how does an MP poll their own constituency? Is this just the MP asking people (in which case you probably need to knock 25% off the option they're known to prefer) or is there a proper method to it?
Gold medals and the British Empire. What may be amusing as an observation shared among like-minded friends in a certain tone of voice may become less witty when shared with the entire world in written form by a politician on the government benches in the UK Parliament.
Gold medals and the British Empire. What may be amusing as an observation shared among like-minded friends in a certain tone of voice may become less witty when shared with the entire world in written form by a politician on the government benches in the UK Parliament.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
It is not complicated, they have a vote and there are a lot more of them, that's why you need to listen to the "uninformed" as you so charmingly describe them.
There are some who seem to believe that the "uninformed" should not have a vote. The definition of "uninformed" would seem to be anyone who disagrees with them.
I've stated many times the vote should be restricted to those who have been privately educated and/or are net contributors to the Exchequer.
Net contributors would seem to be the key point, Mr Eagles, as it would get rid of the Peter voting to rob Paul problem. However, that is not going to happen short of social/economic collapse and revolution leading to a dictatorship.
Personally, I agree with Dante that man can only be truly free under a monarchy (but with some constitutional constraint). My ideal would be, perhaps, the Constitution we had under Elizabeth I.
Bizarre comments, when you consider that by common consensus government has been way too responsive to the interests of the wealthy and powerful under the current arrangements
''Not at all. As a society we have to work these things through collectively. That means accepting that sometimes we collectively get these things wrong and have to rethink. ''
Well then practice what you preach. When it looked like Leave were going to lose, I thought we'll I'll vote UKIP from now on, may join the party or canvass or whatever if it means that much to me.
Your option now is to do the same with the lib dems, the party that would take us back in. Vote, contribute, lobby and press the case for rejoining. As you say, nothing is cast in stone.
On the Smith supporters say he's catching up story, how does an MP poll their own constituency? Is this just the MP asking people (in which case you probably need to knock 25% off the option they're known to prefer) or is there a proper method to it?
Genuinely surprised and very sorry to hear people have fallen out and worse over Brexit. Surely friendship and family is more important than that.
I've only had one slight dust-up; most of my friends - REMAINERS and LEAVERS alike - are very sensible, and see that yes, friendship is way more important. Probably helps that most are over 40 and too wise or old to get hysterical. I'd say 60% were LEAVE
My Cornish family will have bloody stand-up rows and nurse decades-long vendettas over anything, let alone BREXIT, so they don't count (though on this the divide was equal and amicable)
There was a big division by party, but it was still less than I'd expected. 35% of Labour voters backed Leave, while 40% of Conservatives backed Remain.
Some Labour-voting areas were massively for Leave, but much of the Stockbroker Belt favoured Remain.
I can't get on to make a prediction. Not too concerned because I have absolutely no idea what turnout is likely to be like standing the various court decisions of who is eligible.
The electorate is c.647,000. Last year it was 554,272 and the turnout was 422,644.
Thought it was less than that after disqualifications?
I think there is less enthusiasm (for anyone) this time around. Just going through the motions.
Straw poll: I endorsed Corbyn in an email to Broxtowe members last night. Response so far (32 people) is 14 mostly enthusiastic for him, 8 opposed (but nobody so far positively saying they like Owen), and 10 can't decide or won't vote. Allow for politeness, people who feel strongly being more likely to reply, etc. But I think enthusiasm level is down but where it exists it's almost entirely for JC.
Presumably you think Corbyn will lead the party to greater success. Out of interest, which Tory marginals do you predict Labour will win back under Corbyn?
I'll happily make my own prediction (SPOILER: Less than 1)
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the context of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
You certainly are a glass half full kinda of chap aren't you....
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the context of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
But whenever did a general election turn in a result anywhere close to where the polls were in midterm?
''Not at all. As a society we have to work these things through collectively. That means accepting that sometimes we collectively get these things wrong and have to rethink. ''
Well then practice what you preach. When it looked like Leave were going to lose, I thought we'll I'll vote UKIP from now on, may join the party or canvass or whatever if it means that much to me.
Your option now is to do the same with the lib dems, the party that would take us back in. Vote, contribute, lobby and press the case for rejoining. As you say, nothing is cast in stone.
That is not my position. We have voted Leave. The eggs cannot be unscrambled now. And the democratic vote must be respected. We must leave and leave with restrictions on freedom of movement. The people have voted to repel boarders and as much as I believe the means by which the decision was reached to be a moral disgrace, the decision must be implemented. Besides, remaining in the EU would be impractical now.
Those of us who believe in open-mindedness, international cooperation and as much freedom of movement as possible are going to need to rethink how to achieve that following this decision. The vacuum on the left means that no one has yet properly started thinking through the consequences (and the right is too drunk on success to care just yet).
Genuinely surprised and very sorry to hear people have fallen out and worse over Brexit. Surely friendship and family is more important than that.
There's bit of a vacuum at the mo, hopefully things will get better when it's clearer what Brexit means, and when it's clear there is no revolution the remoaners will see they are being silly.
Meanwhile, keep on telling the 'remoaners' that they're being 'silly'. That'll help.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
You certainly are a glass half full kinda of chap aren't you....
I am not actually - indeed by nature I am a pessimist rather than an optimist! I do, however, have a strong sense of psephological history stretching back to World War 2.
Genuinely surprised and very sorry to hear people have fallen out and worse over Brexit. Surely friendship and family is more important than that.
I've only had one slight dust-up; most of my friends - REMAINERS and LEAVERS alike - are very sensible, and see that yes, friendship is way more important. Probably helps that most are over 40 and too wise or old to get hysterical. I'd say 60% were LEAVE
My Cornish family will have bloody stand-up rows and nurse decades-long vendettas over anything, let alone BREXIT, so they don't count (though on this the divide was equal and amicable)
There was a big division by party, but it was still less than I'd expected. 35% of Labour voters backed Leave, while 40% of Conservatives backed Remain.
Some Labour-voting areas were massively for Leave, but much of the Stockbroker Belt favoured Remain.
Not so sure - places like Sevenoaks were surprisingly leave. The analysis suggests that education, rather than wealth, was the more correlated with voting remain.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
Outside of bickering on PB, do you actually in day to day life think there is a class of people called "experts" with markedly superior predictive ability? It seems the same sort of mentality as people who think of scientists as "boffins".
The experts you presumably want to appeal to in this case are economists, who as a class are acutely vulnerable to the question, if they have superior predictive ability, where are their private jets? Specifically on the brexit question I think most economists would say that it depends on the politics, which is not their thing anyway (unless they are canny enough to read PB in their spare time).
'I've yet to talk to anyone who thinks the interest rate cut is a good idea. Consensus is that it is perfectly designed to hurt banks without helping anyone. Then again, i do hang out with a lot of bankers...
(View is thatCarney felt he needed to be seen to do something rather than actually having any worthwhile ideas)'
Exactly, did Carney think that millions more shoppers would hit the high street as a result of a 0.25% cut in interest rates ?
This just looks like a panic measure or more likely Carney trying to prove a point as it goes hand in hand with him constantly talking down our economy.
More worrying is if there really is an economic hit with Brexit later on, the ammo box is now empty.
Quite. I really think they thought they needed to be seen to be doing "something/anything", and they are blindly following the old rule book of interest rate cuts equals stimulating the economy. Given we are in real danger of what I believe is called the "liquidity trap" it was madness.
The best I can say for it is it might have contributed just partly to Sterling's weakness, but there again it will take us a year and a lot of negotiating even at 1.15 Euro to the £ to earn back any exchange windfall which will promptly go straight into the extra cash being demanded right now for the pension scheme, which has been made to look sicker than it was precisely because the interest rate/gilt yield environment has been made worse by Carney and his merry men running around cutting rates and spraying yet more QE around because they think the end is nigh.
Carney cannot be fired fast enough as far as I am concerned.
At these levels, how can banks make money other than increasing charges to users?
Yes, we had our bank manager in last week (to whom we owe no money) muttering about "increased fees". Quelle surprise.
It would behove the BoE far better to consider that the financial and housing markets are in danger of being warped into Dutch Tulip mode by this exotic policy. We need some inflation so we can raise rates a bit, which will give some yield, and start to bring back some normality. They should be thinking "how do we get to 3% interest rates?", but it just seems beyond them and they seem oblivious (to my ken) to the damage they are doing now.
We are then back to the question of the last 15 years, how do you create inflation....
Devalue your currency by jumping out from behind the sofa and yelling 'BREXIT!' at the markets.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
Outside of bickering on PB, do you actually in day to day life think there is a class of people called "experts" with markedly superior predictive ability? It seems the same sort of mentality as people who think of scientists as "boffins".
The experts you presumably want to appeal to in this case are economists, who as a class are acutely vulnerable to the question, if they have superior predictive ability, where are their private jets? Specifically on the brexit question I think most economists would say that it depends on the politics, which is not their thing anyway (unless they are canny enough to read PB in their spare time).
So called experts should, generally, be better placed to make informed judgements, since they spent much of their lives considering all aspects of problems that we come to cold and judge by a mixture of instinct and first thoughts. Their weak spot, however, is that they operate surrounded by other experts and are therefore vulnerable to blind spots if a factor previously unconsidered comes at them from left field.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the context of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
The flaw in your analysis is believing that the Labour vote would change uniformly across the country. It's more likely to hold up in safe Labour seats in the big cities and decline by more than average elsewhere, which means the marginals. Labour would probably lose more than six seats in that case.
Anyway, good CBI industrial trends numbers. As @MaxPB has been saying for a while, it does look as though the short-term outlook is reasonably good.
Considering the downside risk of Brexit was meant to be front loaded in the short term with opportunities for Brexit in the long term do you start to regret some of what you said before the vote?
We haven't left the EU yet and we don't know what our terms of exit will look like. It is far too early to begin making judgements on the medium to long term picture.
The question wasn't about the medium to long term picture though.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
No worse than Labour's performance at this stage of the 1959 Parliament - Labour failed to take the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964.Labour's performance is also no worse than 15 to 18 months into the 1987 Parliament - again Labour did not take the lead until Whitsun 1989. The 1992 election was lost - but a net gain of 42 seats was made even after Thatcher's removal. Had the latter not occurred Labour might have gained circa 70 seats and formed a minority Government.
Those of us who believe in open-mindedness, international cooperation and as much freedom of movement as possible ...
That includes quite a few PBers, myself included, who voted Leave. So get off your moral high horse. There was enough immorality in both campaigns, and enough moral principled people on both sides.
If you truly believe that the only moral position was Remain, then you exclude yourself from the open-minded part of that description.
Anyway, good CBI industrial trends numbers. As @MaxPB has been saying for a while, it does look as though the short-term outlook is reasonably good.
Considering the downside risk of Brexit was meant to be front loaded in the short term with opportunities for Brexit in the long term do you start to regret some of what you said before the vote?
No, of course not. What I said was that my take was that there was zero probability of a boost to the economy in the short to medium term (1 - 2 years), a 20% chance of no significant hit, a 20% chance of a serious hit comparable to 2008/9, and a 60% chance of a significant but not too serious a downturn. That remains my view, but it's far too early to say how things will turn out. Many people seem not to have noticed, or are deliberately ignoring, the fact that as yet we don't have much of a clue about what settlement we will reach with our EU friends, or even when we might know what settlement we will reach.
I think with good export numbers, a devalued currency and not much of a real discernible shock to services the possibility of a short-to-medium (1-2 year) boost to the economy has to be non-zero.
A moment to reflect. Today is the 25th anniversary of the Web. To which I owe pretty much all the good things that have happened to me in the latter part of my life. My wife, my mental health, my career, my hobbies. Sir Tim Berners-Lee is the greatest, don't even argue.
Apart from the usual suspects, very few puerile faces on pbCOM today.
Is anyone else finding post Brexit social engagements awkward? I've just had to get my friend email her seating arrangement for a formal engagement this Saturday to ensure that I have not been inadvertently positioned next to any Brexit pillocks. Tories are OK, but Bexit, no way.
It's a good job I'm not single- the exclusion list for potential partners is growing- meat eaters (imagine kissing someone with a bit of bacon stuck in their teeth..... gross), right wing zealots, anyone who remotely thinks that the badger cull is acceptable, and the 52% who voted Brexit.....
How utterly crass. If a guest of mine asked that I would laugh.
A good chunk of the rejected papers were completely blank. The most common reason for rejection was "voting for too many". I suspect this says more about the design of the ballot paper than about the voting system.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
No worse than Labour's performance at this stage of the 1959 Parliament - Labour failed to take the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964.Labour's performance is also no worse than 15 to 18 months into the 1987 Parliament - again Labour did not take the lead until Whitsun 1989. The 1992 election was lost - but a net gain of 42 seats was made even after Thatcher's removal. Had the latter not occurred Labour might have gained circa 70 seats and formed a minority Government.
Hang on though, Mr. 124, are we not told on this site that polling is now much better and more sophisticated than it was previously let alone back in the 1950s? If that idea is correct what value is there in comparing polling figures now with those of the '87 parliament never mind that of 1959?
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the context of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
The flaw in your analysis is believing that the Labour vote would change uniformly across the country. It's more likely to hold up in safe Labour seats in the big cities and decline by more than average elsewhere, which means the marginals. Labour would probably lose more than six seats in that case.
I don't believe that flaw does apply here for the simple reason that most of the Labour marginals at risk were gained from the Tories in 2015 and the new MPs could expect a first time incumbency bonus. Whilst I am not a great fan of crossthreads and am very disclined to read too much into them, it might be significant that the YouGov tables are implying a Lab to Con swing in Scotland of circa 8%. Given that the overall GB swing shown is just 0.7% , it must follow that the swing in England is very small indeed - or zero!
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
No worse than Labour's performance at this stage of the 1959 Parliament - Labour failed to take the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964.Labour's performance is also no worse than 15 to 18 months into the 1987 Parliament - again Labour did not take the lead until Whitsun 1989. The 1992 election was lost - but a net gain of 42 seats was made even after Thatcher's removal. Had the latter not occurred Labour might have gained circa 70 seats and formed a minority Government.
Keep clutching those tiny straws.
Meanwhile, nearly 50 years since socialism won a working majority...
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
It is not complicated, they have a vote and there are a lot more of them, that's why you need to listen to the "uninformed" as you so charmingly describe them.
There are some who seem to believe that the "uninformed" should not have a vote. The definition of "uninformed" would seem to be anyone who disagrees with them.
I've stated many times the vote should be restricted to those who have been privately educated and/or are net contributors to the Exchequer.
Net contributors would seem to be the key point, Mr Eagles, as it would get rid of the Peter voting to rob Paul problem. However, that is not going to happen short of social/economic collapse and revolution leading to a dictatorship.
Personally, I agree with Dante that man can only be truly free under a monarchy (but with some constitutional constraint). My ideal would be, perhaps, the Constitution we had under Elizabeth I.
Bizarre comments, when you consider that by common consensus government has been way too responsive to the interests of the wealthy and powerful under the current arrangements
Serious question. Can you point to a time in modern Western Democracy's history when the rich and the connected have had less power than currently?
It strikes me as far from ideal now, with pay for access in one hidden form or another, but I truly can't think of a Golden Era when it was actually better.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
Outside of bickering on PB, do you actually in day to day life think there is a class of people called "experts" with markedly superior predictive ability? It seems the same sort of mentality as people who think of scientists as "boffins".
The experts you presumably want to appeal to in this case are economists, who as a class are acutely vulnerable to the question, if they have superior predictive ability, where are their private jets? Specifically on the brexit question I think most economists would say that it depends on the politics, which is not their thing anyway (unless they are canny enough to read PB in their spare time).
So called experts should, generally, be better placed to make informed judgements, since they spent much of their lives considering all aspects of problems that we come to cold and judge by a mixture of instinct and first thoughts. Their weak spot, however, is that they operate surrounded by other experts and are therefore vulnerable to blind spots if a factor previously unconsidered comes at them from left field.
That's a nice idea, but just not borne out by the evidence which is very clearly that the predictive power of economists is close to nil. If you can't predict something as big and obvious and well-understood as recessions, what can you predict? (That is a point against expert-groupies, incidentally, not against economists - except to the extent that economists claim superior foresight as to the consequences of brexit).
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
Outside of bickering on PB, do you actually in day to day life think there is a class of people called "experts" with markedly superior predictive ability? It seems the same sort of mentality as people who think of scientists as "boffins".
The experts you presumably want to appeal to in this case are economists, who as a class are acutely vulnerable to the question, if they have superior predictive ability, where are their private jets? Specifically on the brexit question I think most economists would say that it depends on the politics, which is not their thing anyway (unless they are canny enough to read PB in their spare time).
So called experts should, generally, be better placed to make informed judgements, since they spent much of their lives considering all aspects of problems that we come to cold and judge by a mixture of instinct and first thoughts. Their weak spot, however, is that they operate surrounded by other experts and are therefore vulnerable to blind spots if a factor previously unconsidered comes at them from left field.
I have been dubbed an expert (by people who would know, I hasten to add) during two periods of my career. It's not a magical power. I was mostly conscious of the huge amount of things I didn't know rather than the things I did.
My abiding view is the global economy has passed beyond the humanly comprehensible event horizon. It's just too complex, with too many factors to model accurately. Hence, while I'm perfectly happy to use the models that are available (e.g. NIESR), I do so in the knowledge that as far as predicting 2030 economic out turns is concerned, I may as well be examining chicken entrails and rattling the bones.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
It is not complicated, they have a vote and there are a lot more of them, that's why you need to listen to the "uninformed" as you so charmingly describe them.
There are some who seem to believe that the "uninformed" should not have a vote. The definition of "uninformed" would seem to be anyone who disagrees with them.
I've stated many times the vote should be restricted to those who have been privately educated and/or are net contributors to the Exchequer.
Net contributors would seem to be the key point, Mr Eagles, as it would get rid of the Peter voting to rob Paul problem. However, that is not going to happen short of social/economic collapse and revolution leading to a dictatorship.
Personally, I agree with Dante that man can only be truly free under a monarchy (but with some constitutional constraint). My ideal would be, perhaps, the Constitution we had under Elizabeth I.
Bizarre comments, when you consider that by common consensus government has been way too responsive to the interests of the wealthy and powerful under the current arrangements
Serious question. Can you point to a time in modern Western Democracy's history when the rich and the connected have had less power than currently?
It strikes me as far from ideal now, with pay for access in one hidden form or another, but I truly can't think of a Golden Era when it was actually better.
No, I am inclined to agree, even whilst adding that it is the lack of systematic (in the literal sense) response to this exclusion that is forcing reaction through shock (Brexit, Trump, far right parties etc.).
But my post was a reaction to the - hopefully tongue in cheek - proposals from the previous two posters to restrict voting to those with more income or wealth.
Apart from the usual suspects, very few puerile faces on pbCOM today.
Is anyone else finding post Brexit social engagements awkward? I've just had to get my friend email her seating arrangement for a formal engagement this Saturday to ensure that I have not been inadvertently positioned next to any Brexit pillocks. Tories are OK, but Bexit, no way.
It's a good job I'm not single- the exclusion list for potential partners is growing- meat eaters (imagine kissing someone with a bit of bacon stuck in their teeth..... gross), right wing zealots, anyone who remotely thinks that the badger cull is acceptable, and the 52% who voted Brexit.....
How utterly crass. If a guest of mine asked that I would laugh.
If he were a guest at a party I was organising I'd put him on a Brexit table with a Union Flag twinned with the Italian flag as the table setting.
Apart from the usual suspects, very few puerile faces on pbCOM today.
Is anyone else finding post Brexit social engagements awkward? I've just had to get my friend email her seating arrangement for a formal engagement this Saturday to ensure that I have not been inadvertently positioned next to any Brexit pillocks. Tories are OK, but Bexit, no way.
It's a good job I'm not single- the exclusion list for potential partners is growing- meat eaters (imagine kissing someone with a bit of bacon stuck in their teeth..... gross), right wing zealots, anyone who remotely thinks that the badger cull is acceptable, and the 52% who voted Brexit.....
How utterly crass. If a guest of mine asked that I would laugh.
Yes, it must be nice to be a Friend of Tyson, and get these long exhaustive emails detailing exactly who is he prepared to be seated next to, and who must be seated at a distance from him, should he deign to come to your party. Like a kind of poxy vegan archduke.
tyson forgot farmers who let their dogs kill vermin from his list. Oh! And posho athletes who win medals for his country.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
No worse than Labour's performance at this stage of the 1959 Parliament - Labour failed to take the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964.Labour's performance is also no worse than 15 to 18 months into the 1987 Parliament - again Labour did not take the lead until Whitsun 1989. The 1992 election was lost - but a net gain of 42 seats was made even after Thatcher's removal. Had the latter not occurred Labour might have gained circa 70 seats and formed a minority Government.
Disregard the polls when evaluating Labour's chances - instead put yourself in the mindset of a voter in a marginal (or indeed in a any other constituency) and you're holding that stubby pencil, hovering over the ballot paper in a General Election.
Do you really want to vote for a party led by a guy who lives in a cloud cuckoo land where protecting your country's citizens comes down the list somewhere behind avoiding military action at whatever cost, a guy who cannot even manage his own party let alone the country, a guy who's sole economic policy is to screw the rich and hand power back to the unions?
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
No worse than Labour's performance at this stage of the 1959 Parliament - Labour failed to take the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964.Labour's performance is also no worse than 15 to 18 months into the 1987 Parliament - again Labour did not take the lead until Whitsun 1989. The 1992 election was lost - but a net gain of 42 seats was made even after Thatcher's removal. Had the latter not occurred Labour might have gained circa 70 seats and formed a minority Government.
Hang on though, Mr. 124, are we not told on this site that polling is now much better and more sophisticated than it was previously let alone back in the 1950s? If that idea is correct what value is there in comparing polling figures now with those of the '87 parliament never mind that of 1959?
With respect that rather adds to my point in that the polls in the 1987 Parliament were understating the Tories/overestimating Labour so that the underlying reality was that Labour was further adrift of the Tories in 1988 than was being suggested by the polls at the time.On that basis, of course, Labour was almost certainly doing worse in Autumn 1988/early 1989 than it appears to be at present. I appreciate that what I have said here is based on the YouGov poll - though the previous one had similar figures! - and that other polls show a wider gap. Having said that, Mori increasingly looks out of step with % share ratings too high for both major parties.
Apart from the usual suspects, very few puerile faces on pbCOM today.
Is anyone else finding post Brexit social engagements awkward? I've just had to get my friend email her seating arrangement for a formal engagement this Saturday to ensure that I have not been inadvertently positioned next to any Brexit pillocks. Tories are OK, but Bexit, no way.
It's a good job I'm not single- the exclusion list for potential partners is growing- meat eaters (imagine kissing someone with a bit of bacon stuck in their teeth..... gross), right wing zealots, anyone who remotely thinks that the badger cull is acceptable, and the 52% who voted Brexit.....
How utterly crass. If a guest of mine asked that I would laugh.
Yes, it must be nice to be a Friend of Tyson, and get these long exhaustive emails detailing exactly who is he prepared to be seated next to, and who must be seated at a distance from him, should he deign to come to your party. Like a kind of poxy vegan archduke.
tyson forgot farmers who let their dogs kill vermin from his list. Oh! And posho athletes who win medals for his country.
Does he not like that? He wouldn't have enjoyed my walk this morning. (A squirrel which thought it could outrun a lurcher got edited out of the gene pool. Sadly.)
Apart from the usual suspects, very few puerile faces on pbCOM today.
Is anyone else finding post Brexit social engagements awkward? I've just had to get my friend email her seating arrangement for a formal engagement this Saturday to ensure that I have not been inadvertently positioned next to any Brexit pillocks. Tories are OK, but Bexit, no way.
It's a good job I'm not single- the exclusion list for potential partners is growing- meat eaters (imagine kissing someone with a bit of bacon stuck in their teeth..... gross), right wing zealots, anyone who remotely thinks that the badger cull is acceptable, and the 52% who voted Brexit.....
How utterly crass. If a guest of mine asked that I would laugh.
If a guest of mine asked that, they would be an ex-guest. I like my friends to be affable, amusing, well mannered and tolerant.
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
Outside of bickering on PB, do you actually in day to day life think there is a class of people called "experts" with markedly superior predictive ability? It seems the same sort of mentality as people who think of scientists as "boffins".
The experts you presumably want to appeal to in this case are economists, who as a class are acutely vulnerable to the question, if they have superior predictive ability, where are their private jets? Specifically on the brexit question I think most economists would say that it depends on the politics, which is not their thing anyway (unless they are canny enough to read PB in their spare time).
So called experts should, generally, be better placed to make informed judgements, since they spent much of their lives considering all aspects of problems that we come to cold and judge by a mixture of instinct and first thoughts. Their weak spot, however, is that they operate surrounded by other experts and are therefore vulnerable to blind spots if a factor previously unconsidered comes at them from left field.
I have been dubbed an expert (by people who would know, I hasten to add) during two periods of my career. It's not a magical power. I was mostly conscious of the huge amount of things I didn't know rather than the things I did.
My abiding view is the global economy has passed beyond the humanly comprehensible event horizon. It's just too complex, with too many factors to model accurately. Hence, while I'm perfectly happy to use the models that are available (e.g. NIESR), I do so in the knowledge that as far as predicting 2030 economic out turns is concerned, I may as well be examining chicken entrails and rattling the bones.
Indeed, for problems that fall within the realm of complexity, such research as there is indicates that true experts (people with the 10,000 hours of engaged involvement or whatever the definition is) are often worse at predictions in their field of expertise than lay people.
Part of the explanation may be that they get too narrowly focused on issues they have studied, rather than elements they have not.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
No worse than Labour's performance at this stage of the 1959 Parliament - Labour failed to take the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964.Labour's performance is also no worse than 15 to 18 months into the 1987 Parliament - again Labour did not take the lead until Whitsun 1989. The 1992 election was lost - but a net gain of 42 seats was made even after Thatcher's removal. Had the latter not occurred Labour might have gained circa 70 seats and formed a minority Government.
Hang on though, Mr. 124, are we not told on this site that polling is now much better and more sophisticated than it was previously let alone back in the 1950s? If that idea is correct what value is there in comparing polling figures now with those of the '87 parliament never mind that of 1959?
You mean it's wrong with a higher degree of precision?
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the context of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
But whenever did a general election turn in a result anywhere close to where the polls were in midterm?
But midterm will not arrive until we reach 2017 and it may be the case that the nadir of the Government's electoral fortunes will not occur until 2018 - or even 2019.
I see the professionally offended are expressing faux-outrage over Heather Wheeler's light-hearted comment on twitter that the British Empire finished first in the Olympics.
I'm not offended. But it does mark her out as a complete honking cretin who apparently hasn't noticed that the world has moved on since she was born. This woman is in Parliament. I suppose idiots need their fair share of representation there, same as everyone else.
Anything with the word British - or far worse, English - in it upsets you
I realise that you are among the denser posters on pb, but reread my first sentence.
Apart from the usual suspects, very few puerile faces on pbCOM today.
Is anyone else finding post Brexit social engagements awkward? I've just had to get my friend email her seating arrangement for a formal engagement this Saturday to ensure that I have not been inadvertently positioned next to any Brexit pillocks. Tories are OK, but Bexit, no way.
It's a good job I'm not single- the exclusion list for potential partners is growing- meat eaters (imagine kissing someone with a bit of bacon stuck in their teeth..... gross), right wing zealots, anyone who remotely thinks that the badger cull is acceptable, and the 52% who voted Brexit.....
You should have married yourself so nobody else has to.
That could produce a bit of a stink. The RMT are already having a strop over VTEC's scab army of strike breakers so I doubt they'll be too pleased to see VTEC releasing CCTV footage.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
No worse than Labour's performance at this stage of the 1959 Parliament - Labour failed to take the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964.Labour's performance is also no worse than 15 to 18 months into the 1987 Parliament - again Labour did not take the lead until Whitsun 1989. The 1992 election was lost - but a net gain of 42 seats was made even after Thatcher's removal. Had the latter not occurred Labour might have gained circa 70 seats and formed a minority Government.
Disregard the polls when evaluating Labour's chances - instead put yourself in the mindset of a voter in a marginal (or indeed in a any other constituency) and you're holding that stubby pencil, hovering over the ballot paper in a General Election.
Do you really want to vote for a party led by a guy who lives in a cloud cuckoo land where protecting your country's citizens comes down the list somewhere behind avoiding military action at whatever cost, a guy who cannot even manage his own party let alone the country, a guy who's sole economic policy is to screw the rich and hand power back to the unions?
Yes but that is all subjective stuff and the pollsters have tried to take account of that with their various adjustments.
For some Remainers, the act of voting Leave is going to be like sheepshagging - an appalling moral lapse that even if done by someone only once is going to have to be mentioned in the obituary.
I have just caught up with the latest YouGov poll putting the Tories 8% ahead at 38% to Labour’s 30% Whilst this is not good for Labour – it is also far from being disastrous in the contect of May’s honeymoon and the internal party strife of recent months. It would imply the loss of just six seats which – if accurate – would boost the Tory majority to 24. That would be very far from being a Tory landslide. Moreover, most of the seats lost would have been gained by Labour in 2015 , and the new MPs – based on the evidence of recent elections – could reasonably expect to benefit from a first time incumbency bonus which should enable them to withstand what would be a tiny national swing against Labour of 0.7%. In other words, a Tory lead of 8% today – compared with 6.6% in May 2015 – might well not lead to any Labour losses at all! Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
No worse than Labour's performance at this stage of the 1959 Parliament - Labour failed to take the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964.Labour's performance is also no worse than 15 to 18 months into the 1987 Parliament - again Labour did not take the lead until Whitsun 1989. The 1992 election was lost - but a net gain of 42 seats was made even after Thatcher's removal. Had the latter not occurred Labour might have gained circa 70 seats and formed a minority Government.
Keep clutching those tiny straws.
Meanwhile, nearly 50 years since socialism won a working majority...
I will not be voting Labour in 2020 if Corbyn is Leader and have no reason to talk his prospects up at all!
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
snip4space.
So called experts should, generally, be better placed to make informed judgements, since they spent much of their lives considering all aspects of problems that we come to cold and judge by a mixture of instinct and first thoughts. Their weak spot, however, is that they operate surrounded by other experts and are therefore vulnerable to blind spots if a factor previously unconsidered comes at them from left field.
I have been dubbed an expert (by people who would know, I hasten to add) during two periods of my career. It's not a magical power. I was mostly conscious of the huge amount of things I didn't know rather than the things I did.
My abiding view is the global economy has passed beyond the humanly comprehensible event horizon. It's just too complex, with too many factors to model accurately. Hence, while I'm perfectly happy to use the models that are available (e.g. NIESR), I do so in the knowledge that as far as predicting 2030 economic out turns is concerned, I may as well be examining chicken entrails and rattling the bones.
That's exactly right. Again I point to my analogy. Brexit in particular is so big and profound it's like having a baby. Trying to predict how it will change the economy by 2030, down to a tenth of one percent of GDP, is farcical, like trying to predict how the birth of your first child will affect your happiness by the time that child is 14.
Just pointless. Anyone who pretends to try reveals their ignorance or duplicity.
More generally: you can predict simple systems (billiard ball A hits bb B: what happens next?) because they are simple. You can have a stab at predicting complex systems if you have studied nearly millions of nearly identical complex systems (person has disease A, stage 4: what happens next?). With a one-off complex system like the economy (brexit happens: what happens next?) it's chicken entrail time. Predictions are not what experts are for.
It's very poor at this stage of the Parliament, though. We're moving towards mid-term, when the Opposition should be able to build a substantial lead.
I don't think that historical parallels are as useful as looking at the actual position. We have a new PM in mid-honeymoon, an Opposition leader in whom three quarters of his parliamentary party say they have no confidence, and daily reports of chaotic opposition party in-fighting. Being "only" 8 points behind in these circumstances is a respectable proof of brand.
Would the position be better if the leader is re-elected and his opponents calm down? Yes. Would it then be a lead comparable with mid-terms in the past? Maybe. Perhaps we'll find out!
Ian Dunt Verified account @IanDunt I have never spoken to so many senior people in diverse fields who are as united in their despair over something as Brexit.
Well there's his problem, perhaps for a change he should speak to the many, many non "senior people" who make up the electorate of this country.
Why speak to experts when the uninformed are both more numerous and easier to get hold of?
Outside of bickering on PB, do you actually in day to day life think there is a class of people called "experts" with markedly superior predictive ability? It seems the same sort of mentality as people who think of scientists as "boffins".
The experts you presumably want to appeal to in this case are economists, who as a class are acutely vulnerable to the question, if they have superior predictive ability, where are their private jets? Specifically on the brexit question I think most economists would say that it depends on the politics, which is not their thing anyway (unless they are canny enough to read PB in their spare time).
So called experts should, generally, be better placed to make informed judgements, since they spent much of their lives considering all aspects of problems that we come to cold and judge by a mixture of instinct and first thoughts. Their weak spot, however, is that they operate surrounded by other experts and are therefore vulnerable to blind spots if a factor previously unconsidered comes at them from left field.
I have been dubbed an expert (by people who would know, I hasten to add) during two periods of my career. It's not a magical power. I was mostly conscious of the huge amount of things I didn't know rather than the things I did.
My abiding view is the global economy has passed beyond the humanly comprehensible event horizon. It's just too complex, with too many factors to model accurately. Hence, while I'm perfectly happy to use the models that are available (e.g. NIESR), I do so in the knowledge that as far as predicting 2030 economic out turns is concerned, I may as well be examining chicken entrails and rattling the bones.
That's exactly right. Again I point to my analogy. Brexit in particular is so big and profound it's like having a baby. Trying to predict how it will change the economy by 2030, down to a tenth of one percent of GDP, is farcical, like trying to predict how the birth of your first child will affect your happiness by the time that child is 14.
Just pointless. Anyone who pretends to try reveals their ignorance or duplicity.
Whoops! So he made up the whole damn story, to try and show himself as some man of the people? What bollocks from someone who wants to lead the government-in-waiting.
Indeed, for problems that fall within the realm of complexity, such research as there is indicates that true experts (people with the 10,000 hours of engaged involvement or whatever the definition is) are often worse at predictions in their field of expertise than lay people.
Part of the explanation may be that they get too narrowly focused on issues they have studied, rather than elements they have not.
Up to a point, Mr. T, I suspect that is true but only for topics that the layman has a feel for from his normal life. When it comes to highly technical topics, the expert is, I think, far more likely to be correct.
Take for example the case of molten-salt reactors and the chances of Moltex being able to deploy a workable, safe, plutonium-burning power station by 2025. I think for that question the views of experts are far more likely to be correct than the bloke up the pub. On questions of, say, economics then experience has taught me that said bloke up the pub is probably as likely to be correct than eminent economists (see Blanchflower and 5 million unemployed).
Comments
And that, my dear friends, is Richard Nabavi's version of being told 'the truth'.
It would be like me and Mr. Eagles refusing to speak because he can't understand the most basic tenets of classical history.
Mr. B2, the general point (we haven't left yet so can't judge its impact) is fair, but Carney explicitly said rates would rise, and the reverse has occurred.
I've done a thread comparing Corbyn and the Corbynites to Hannibal.
And in another thread I compare Corbyn to Emperor Honorius and the sack of Rome. Theresa May as Alaric
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37154456
Compare the discord Corbyn has now to the its near total absence during Hannibal decades leading an army composed of wildly varying groups, most of him didn't speak the same language.
Here is an item from the Telegraph in May with Carney's comments about interest rates and Brexit:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/24/interest-rates-could-go-up-or-down-after-brexit-vote-says-mark-c/
If you read it carefully, you will see that it is a lot more considered than the simplistic straw person the Brexiters are trying to knock down in here. He even, twice, discusses the possibility that rates may be reduced after a Brexit vote - including concluding that on balance an "out" vote would reduce the likelihood of rising rates.
Indeed, Mr B2 made a much more nuanced assessment of what might happen than Carney did!!
My oldest friend (whose partner is Asian) once voted BNP. I winced and got over it. My parents were Tories, and surprised to find they'd raised a teenage Communist. They too got over it. Family and friends come first.
Leavers cannot demand that Remainers like them (or vice versa for that matter). For some Remainers, the act of voting Leave is going to be like sheepshagging - an appalling moral lapse that even if done by someone only once is going to have to be mentioned in the obituary. It's equally apparent that plenty of Leavers regard Remainers as treacherous degenerates.
As it happens, I'm putting together a thread on the divisions that the Brexit vote has given rise to. I hope that it will lead to lively debate.
The areas where Remain really racked up the votes were centres of government (Inner London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, non-Unionist Belfast) or cities with a very big university presence. Other big urban areas voted much more in line with the rest of the country.
Like Roger, I suspect in person you are polite and reasonable and wouldn't dare say what you say on here to their face, even if you vehemently disagreed with them.
You'd sit next to each other, it'd be fine, and you'd probably come back on here to vent after.
Mr. Meeks, there's a question whether those divisions have arisen or merely come out into the open, though.
Mr. B2, ah, cheers for that. Whilst I still think the cut was daft, I was probably conflating Osborne's utterances for Carney's, [perhaps forgivable given how much their views appeared to align in the campaign].
Sounds like we should ditch this 'democracy' lark....
the "right" answer is, of course, fees for bank accounts but last time i suggested that @Cyclefree got uncommonly grumpy
Personally, I agree with Dante that man can only be truly free under a monarchy (but with some constitutional constraint). My ideal would be, perhaps, the Constitution we had under Elizabeth I.
One grievous mistake would not invalidate the system.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37156178
Well then practice what you preach. When it looked like Leave were going to lose, I thought we'll I'll vote UKIP from now on, may join the party or canvass or whatever if it means that much to me.
Your option now is to do the same with the lib dems, the party that would take us back in. Vote, contribute, lobby and press the case for rejoining. As you say, nothing is cast in stone.
Some Labour-voting areas were massively for Leave, but much of the Stockbroker Belt favoured Remain.
I'll happily make my own prediction (SPOILER: Less than 1)
Wikipedia Link
Going on to gain Tory seats, however, would be a different matter.
Those of us who believe in open-mindedness, international cooperation and as much freedom of movement as possible are going to need to rethink how to achieve that following this decision. The vacuum on the left means that no one has yet properly started thinking through the consequences (and the right is too drunk on success to care just yet).
That'll help.
The experts you presumably want to appeal to in this case are economists, who as a class are acutely vulnerable to the question, if they have superior predictive ability, where are their private jets? Specifically on the brexit question I think most economists would say that it depends on the politics, which is not their thing anyway (unless they are canny enough to read PB in their spare time).
Stephen Bush is talking bollocks. I'll definitely do a thread on this
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/768042820334718976
Whilst I am not a great fan of crossthreads and am very disclined to read too much into them, it might be significant that the YouGov tables are implying a Lab to Con swing in Scotland of circa 8%. Given that the overall GB swing shown is just 0.7% , it must follow that the swing in England is very small indeed - or zero!
Meanwhile, nearly 50 years since socialism won a working majority...
It strikes me as far from ideal now, with pay for access in one hidden form or another, but I truly can't think of a Golden Era when it was actually better.
My abiding view is the global economy has passed beyond the humanly comprehensible event horizon. It's just too complex, with too many factors to model accurately. Hence, while I'm perfectly happy to use the models that are available (e.g. NIESR), I do so in the knowledge that as far as predicting 2030 economic out turns is concerned, I may as well be examining chicken entrails and rattling the bones.
But my post was a reaction to the - hopefully tongue in cheek - proposals from the previous two posters to restrict voting to those with more income or wealth.
Do you really want to vote for a party led by a guy who lives in a cloud cuckoo land where protecting your country's citizens comes down the list somewhere behind avoiding military action at whatever cost, a guy who cannot even manage his own party let alone the country, a guy who's sole economic policy is to screw the rich and hand power back to the unions?
I appreciate that what I have said here is based on the YouGov poll - though the previous one had similar figures! - and that other polls show a wider gap. Having said that, Mori increasingly looks out of step with % share ratings too high for both major parties.
Part of the explanation may be that they get too narrowly focused on issues they have studied, rather than elements they have not.
Hahahaha!
Obviously it shows Corbyn for what he is.
Would the position be better if the leader is re-elected and his opponents calm down? Yes. Would it then be a lead comparable with mid-terms in the past? Maybe. Perhaps we'll find out!
Time was they were the fount of all wisdom for the Nats (about two years ago)
Now they're total rubbish and meaningless.....
Take for example the case of molten-salt reactors and the chances of Moltex being able to deploy a workable, safe, plutonium-burning power station by 2025. I think for that question the views of experts are far more likely to be correct than the bloke up the pub. On questions of, say, economics then experience has taught me that said bloke up the pub is probably as likely to be correct than eminent economists (see Blanchflower and 5 million unemployed).