Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think Leavers had a far better GOTV operation that Remainers. Trump has the worse GOTV operation. How important that is, I don't know. But it isn't an exact copy of Brexit.
I think her GOTV will give Clinton the edge. I'm also hoping the Democrat snowbirds flying down from NY to Florida for the winter will swing it for her in Florida. That would be a clincher. Perhaps that's all just wishful thinking.
I don't think Leavers had any advantage in their GOTV ops.
It's the issue itself which Got Out The Vote. I know people who hadn't voted in 20 years who specifically registered just to vote LEAVE.
Can Trump do the same? Very possible. White western people on stagnating incomes are angry.
I base my judgement on the quality of the Leavers GOTV operation on comments made here by leavers who were involved in it.
My judgement on the Remainers GOTV operation is based on my personal experience of it. I volunteered to the national Remain operation to do phone canvassing, database management and GOTV on the day. The only phone canvassing they were interested in was finding activists to man their stalls. Waste of time.
Meanwhile the Leavers did the classic operation of identifying their supporters and getting them out on the day (or posting their vote).
However I agree with you that angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.
Where's Rod Crosby ?
He got the ban hammer....he went all Red Ken...
Can the mods let him back for the next few weeks, but only during the hours of daylight before the lagershed?
Donald Trump's Betfair movements today have been curious. Having dropped from 2.7 to 2.92 in minutes, he's now steadily crawling back to his earlier position; he's currently at 2.76.
which sort oif says that if the bankers are crap and the regulators useless why would you want all your risk in a handful of banks ? Why not spread it around on the hope you can pick up more people who know what they are doing ?
Well, you should. But, realistically, how many bank branches in a given town, and how many national banks providing full banking service, can you have? They are all basically doing the same boring thing (and doing it rather well, actually - we are so used to this that we don't even notice how smoothly and reliably funds transfers and cash machines work). There's little room for competitive advantage. If there were, new entrants would enter the market more than they do.
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.
Where's Rod Crosby ?
He got the ban hammer....he went all Red Ken...
Can the mods let him back for the next few weeks, but only during the hours of daylight before the lagershed?
''In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. ''
And there's me thinking it was US mortgage backed securities that were repackaged by investment banks, given triple A ratings and sold to gullible investors.
Ultimately, banks in the UK, Spain and Ireland went bust for exactly the same reason. They lent money to people who could not afford to repay it. They didn't lose it because of people sitting on trading floors, or people (outside the board of directors) earning seven figure sums.
When unemployment spiked and the house prices fell, banks found they were hideously undercapitalised. RBS had tier one capital of something like 3%*. (Think of it like this: tier one capital is how much money you can lose before you get into trouble.) This was, it turned out, massively too little.
* It's a complicated decision calculating how much capital you need. Really, what banks do is borrow from one set of customers (depositors) and lend to another (mortgages, businesses, credit cards). They then have a certain amount of their own money which exists to fill in the holes if losses overwhelm the bank. Before the GFC and Eurozone crises, banks typically had less than 5% tier one capital (using today's measurements); now they have more than twice (and probably closer to three times that amount), and their loans are arguably safer.
''In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. ''
And there's me thinking it was US mortgage backed securities that were repackaged by investment banks, given triple A ratings and sold to gullible investors.
Jeez it really is CiF day on here. Yes that was the catalyst. And then those boring old banks which provided mortgages (and yes the point is well made about self-certifying, 125% ones) found that when liquidity tightened, they found themselves in trouble.
The nature of the lending wouldn't particularly cause a liquidity issue - it was banks that pursued growth at a rate faster than their equity financing would support, and when they couldn't finance in the secondary market ran into problems.
538 is giving similar results. Needless to say, this is so close that Trump wouldn't have to flip Pennsylvania into his column. Colorado, or even New Hampshire, would be enough.
Of course, this all depends on whether or not we can trust the polls in the first place. If there's any significant shy Trump voter effect which hasn't been modelled, then he's probably already in pole position.
Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think Leavers had a far better GOTV operation that Remainers. Trump has the worse GOTV operation. How important that is, I don't know. But it isn't an exact copy of Brexit.
I think her GOTV will give Clinton the edge. I'm also hoping the Democrat snowbirds flying down from NY to Florida for the winter will swing it for her in Florida. That would be a clincher. Perhaps that's all just wishful thinking.
Are the snowbirds registered to vote in Florida though or in New York? I can't see it making a difference as the US always have their elections in November.
I don't know. If they are registered in Florida but usually live in NY they might be missed by the pollsters. If they have any political savvy, they would register in Florida where they might make a difference. There are thousands of them. Almost all women. I was once propositioned by one on a flight from NY to Miami.
@Morris_Dancer It's a lot of money being traded for statistical noise. I infer that someone had a big pro-Trump position that they now wished to close out at a profit. I suppose it's logical to wish to do so in advance of an event that could change the price dramatically.
That's not a lead, it's a probability estimate on an election held today. It corresponds to a 0.3% lead.
I think Nate's forecast is in the hinterland of Trump loses popular vote, wins ECV on a probabilistic sum basis (Though each state as an absolute 1,0 result still ends up Hillary).
One thing that I think stands out compared with the last time is that there are comparatively few very safe Trump states. The result is that some or maybe even all of the built in advantage in the EC that the Democrats have has been removed. Trump is getting more votes where he needs them and less where they make no difference.
It is interesting that Michigan and New Hampshire are both more likely to break for Trump than Pennsylvania.
Mitt Romney was 121 votes behind Obama in the EC, despite being only 3.8% behind. By contrast, Kerry in 2004 was 35 votes behind in the EC, despite being 3.4% behind in votes. Romney racked up some huge, but useless leads, in safe Red States.
Trump's vote, by contrast, is more efficiently distributed than Romney's. Trump is doing worse among Latino voters, religious conservatives, and upscale white voters than Romney, but doing way better than Romney among white voters without college degrees (one poll put him 60% ahead among that groups!) who I understand are overrepresented in swing States.
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.
Where's Rod Crosby ?
He got the ban hammer....he went all Red Ken...
Can the mods let him back for the next few weeks, but only during the hours of daylight before the lagershed?
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.
Where's Rod Crosby ?
He got the ban hammer....he went all Red Ken...
Can the mods let him back for the next few weeks, but only during the hours of daylight before the lagershed?
There's no place for holocaust deniers on PB.
A fair point Mike. Yourself and the mods probably have enough on your plate as it is. Keep up the good work
''In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. ''
And there's me thinking it was US mortgage backed securities that were repackaged by investment banks, given triple A ratings and sold to gullible investors.
Jeez it really is CiF day on here. Yes that was the catalyst. And then those boring old banks which provided mortgages (and yes the point is well made about self-certifying, 125% ones) found that when liquidity tightened, they found themselves in trouble.
The nature of the lending wouldn't particularly cause a liquidity issue - it was banks that pursued growth at a rate faster than their equity financing would support, and when they couldn't finance in the secondary market ran into problems.
I used to do a chart for our investors, and on the one axis it had "return on equity", and on the other it had "leverage". It turned out the "better" a bank was, the more leveraged it was. Investors were paying up for leverage, rather than quality!*
* A point which was not lost on the management of most banks. Want to get your share price up and get your share options to pay out? Simples, lend as much as you can, and keep as little equity as you can. Not, I'm sure, a problem that affects certain banks on Fleet Street.
I base my judgement on the quality of the Leavers GOTV operation on comments made here by leavers who were involved in it.
My judgement on the Remainers GOTV operation is based on my personal experience of it. I volunteered to the national Remain operation to do phone canvassing, database management and GOTV on the day. The only phone canvassing they were interested in was finding activists to man their stalls. Waste of time.
Meanwhile the Leavers did the classic operation of identifying their supporters and getting them out on the day (or posting their vote).
However I agree with you that angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
Casino Royale of this fair parish was deeply involved in the LEAVE campaign - and was generally in despair at its ineptitude, lack of coherence, inability to organise, and so forth. He often said that if LEAVE was going to win, it would be DESPITE their campaign.
There was no Leave GOTV operation in Luton, I can tell you that. There was a lot of leafletting.
I think that in some Eastern constituencies UKIP had a GOTV operation, and that in some safe Conservative seats, Leave had one likewise, but my impression was that on the ground, Leave's activity was mostly delivering leaflets in bulk/
Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think Leavers had a far better GOTV operation that Remainers. Trump has the worse GOTV operation. How important that is, I don't know. But it isn't an exact copy of Brexit.
I think her GOTV will give Clinton the edge. I'm also hoping the Democrat snowbirds flying down from NY to Florida for the winter will swing it for her in Florida. That would be a clincher. Perhaps that's all just wishful thinking.
I base my judgement on the quality of the Leavers GOTV operation on comments made here by leavers who were involved in it.
My judgement on the Remainers GOTV operation is based on my personal experience of it. I volunteered to the national Remain operation to do phone canvassing, database management and GOTV on the day. The only phone canvassing they were interested in was finding activists to man their stalls. Waste of time.
Meanwhile the Leavers did the classic operation of identifying their supporters and getting them out on the day (or posting their vote).
However I agree with you that angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
Casino Royale of this fair parish was deeply involved in the LEAVE campaign - and was generally in despair at its ineptitude, lack of coherence, inability to organise, and so forth. He often said that if LEAVE was going to win, it would be DESPITE their campaign.
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.
States are very free with their registration data.
Has there been a surge of white males registering? I understand not from someones posting here before.
''In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. ''
And there's me thinking it was US mortgage backed securities that were repackaged by investment banks, given triple A ratings and sold to gullible investors.
Jeez it really is CiF day on here. Yes that was the catalyst. And then those boring old banks which provided mortgages (and yes the point is well made about self-certifying, 125% ones) found that when liquidity tightened, they found themselves in trouble.
The nature of the lending wouldn't particularly cause a liquidity issue - it was banks that pursued growth at a rate faster than their equity financing would support, and when they couldn't finance in the secondary market ran into problems.
I used to do a chart for our investors, and on the one axis it had "return on equity", and on the other it had "leverage". It turned out the "better" a bank was, the more leveraged it was. Investors were paying up for leverage, rather than quality!*
* A point which was not lost on the management of most banks. Want to get your share price up and get your share options to pay out? Simples, lend as much as you can, and keep as little equity as you can. Not, I'm sure, a problem that affects certain banks on Fleet Street.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Is that true? It was certainly true in London, but I remember thinking as I walked over Waterloo Bridge on June 23, "I bet these people have never been north of Watford."
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.
States are very free with their registration data.
Has there been a surge of white males registering? I understand not from someones posting here before.
yeah, so far it's been people registering who had previously voted. I think the shy trump vote is overstated but it is def very close at the moment.
In sheer number, The Dems have 5 times as many offices in all the swing states and more volunteers than Trump. The GOTV doesn't compare, but of course, that isn't the be all and end all
Most of those banks decided that being "adventurous" was the way forward instead of sticking to the boring stuff. NR had 125% mortgages which sort of says it was sticking its neck out where it shouldnt.
It was doing exactly what you suggested a bank should do, i.e. sticking to boring lending , but it was doing it badly. It was a failure of management, and a failure of regulation (an unsurprising one, given that Brown had deliberately dismantled banking supervision).
You said that banks 'store cash'. Of course they don't. The most basic banking model is to borrow cash from some customers and lend it to other customers.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think Leavers had a far better GOTV operation that Remainers. Trump has the worse GOTV operation. How important that is, I don't know. But it isn't an exact copy of Brexit.
I think her GOTV will give Clinton the edge. I'm also hoping the Democrat snowbirds flying down from NY to Florida for the winter will swing it for her in Florida. That would be a clincher. Perhaps that's all just wishful thinking.
I don't think Leavers had any advantage in their GOTV ops.
It's the issue itself which Got Out The Vote. I know people who hadn't voted in 20 years who specifically registered just to vote LEAVE.
Can Trump do the same? Very possible. White western people on stagnating incomes are angry.
I base my judgement on the quality of the Leavers GOTV operation on comments made here by leavers who were involved in it.
My judgement on the Remainers GOTV operation is based on my personal experience of it. I volunteered to the national Remain operation to do phone canvassing, database management and GOTV on the day. The only phone canvassing they were interested in was finding activists to man their stalls. Waste of time.
Meanwhile the Leavers did the classic operation of identifying their supporters and getting them out on the day (or posting their vote).
However I agree with you that angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
Casino Royale of this fair parish was deeply involved in the LEAVE campaign - and was generally in despair at its ineptitude, lack of coherence, inability to organise, and so forth. He often said that if LEAVE was going to win, it would be DESPITE their campaign.
Yes - I remember his comments. Perhaps both campaigns were crap. Certainly the Remain one was. Probably run by the same people who ran the YES to AV campaign. The GOTV or lack of it) had the same feel to it.
I fear your analysis might be correct. I hope it isn't and I'm currently clutching at straws.
I've stocked up for tonight's debate. Not popcorn. Too serious for that. Tasty cheese plus a good bottle of wine (with one in reserve in case Trump wins).
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
I think another conclusion is that the papers still matter with wavering and late-deciding voters, particularly the elderly. Newspapers are a dying technology, but they'll take a long time to die.
''Most of what the public wants banks for is to store their cash, have some access to it, earn a bit of interest if they have savings and get a loan if they need one. Unfortunately that model doesnt pay bankers super bonuses. But if they want to earn them they should risk their own money.''
Many banks used to be 'boring'. Indeed, that was their marketing strategy! Now it seems those type of banks aren't allowed to exist.
it's not just the banks; the regulators seem to have lost the plot as well, being overly concerned about the low number of people switching.
This *might* be a bad thing if people are prevented from moving for structural reasons, though in reality those reasons don't exist to any great level. More likely, people are largely content with the job their banks are doing.
The number one priority for the great majority of banking customers is not interest rates; it's that their money is safe and accessible and that their personal data is secure. Beyond that, customer service is likely to rank as highly as interest rates. For borrowers, the priorities are probably a little different but all the same, the classic supply-demand market dynamics simply don't apply to anything like the same extent as in, say, retail because 'price' (i.e. interest rates) is not a particularly strong driving factor in consumer behaviour.
Even if Trump doesn't win, there is going to be a lot of head scratching among the Washington Elite that a man so unsuitable for office while spending bugger all on tv ads managed to even be even close in the polls.
Why?
If the reaction of the EU is anything to go by, they are more likely to consider it the voters problem, not theirs.
When the status of elites is fundamentally threatened by a force that holds them up as the problem, they are far more likely to hunker down and blame anything other than themselves.
which sort oif says that if the bankers are crap and the regulators useless why would you want all your risk in a handful of banks ? Why not spread it around on the hope you can pick up more people who know what they are doing ?
Well, you should. But, realistically, how many bank branches in a given town, and how many national banks providing full banking service, can you have? They are all basically doing the same boring thing (and doing it rather well, actually - we are so used to this that we don't even notice how smoothly and reliably funds transfers and cash machines work). There's little room for competitive advantage. If there were, new entrants would enter the market more than they do.
Not sure I agree with that.
For country dwellers like myself currently the offer is - close down all the local branches, force you on to internet banking, there is bugger all internet locally. So how do you bank ?
Even if Trump doesn't win, there is going to be a lot of head scratching among the Washington Elite that a man so unsuitable for office while spending bugger all on tv ads managed to even be even close in the polls.
Why?
If the reaction of the EU is anything to go by, they are more likely to consider it the voters problem, not theirs.
When the status of elites is fundamentally threatened by a force that holds them up as the problem, they are far more likely to hunker down and blame anything other than themselves.
I should have said "There SHOULD be a lot of head scratching". But you are right, it will be put down to the racist trailer park trash vote....
''In fact, in the 2008/9 crisis many of the worst problems (Northern Rock, Lloyds, the Spanish banks, the German banks, the Irish banks) were caused by boring property lending. ''
And there's me thinking it was US mortgage backed securities that were repackaged by investment banks, given triple A ratings and sold to gullible investors.
Jeez it really is CiF day on here. Yes that was the catalyst. And then those boring old banks which provided mortgages (and yes the point is well made about self-certifying, 125% ones) found that when liquidity tightened, they found themselves in trouble.
The nature of the lending wouldn't particularly cause a liquidity issue - it was banks that pursued growth at a rate faster than their equity financing would support, and when they couldn't finance in the secondary market ran into problems.
I used to do a chart for our investors, and on the one axis it had "return on equity", and on the other it had "leverage". It turned out the "better" a bank was, the more leveraged it was. Investors were paying up for leverage, rather than quality!*
* A point which was not lost on the management of most banks. Want to get your share price up and get your share options to pay out? Simples, lend as much as you can, and keep as little equity as you can. Not, I'm sure, a problem that affects certain banks on Fleet Street.
Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think wishful thinking.
I base my judgement on the quality of the Leavers GOTV operation on comments made here by leavers who were involved in it.
My jat angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
Casino Royale of this fair parish was deeply involved in the LEAVE campaign - and was generally in despair at its ineptitude, lack of coherence, inability to organise, and so forth. He often said that if LEAVE was going to win, it would be DESPITE their campaign.
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Indeed. The campaigns were fairly irrelevant, to my mind, apart from Project Fear scoring too many own goals (Obama's Queue and the Punishment Budget were particularly stupid errors)
The main thing was the product. You guys were selling the better product. Take Back Control. So simple, so powerful.
I was within .00000001mm of being tipped from Remain to Leave by fury at the posturing superiority of the Remain campaign. I don't think I was influenced in a positive way by anything in either campaign.
Even if Trump doesn't win, there is going to be a lot of head scratching among the Washington Elite that a man so unsuitable for office while spending bugger all on tv ads managed to even be even close in the polls.
Why?
If the reaction of the EU is anything to go by, they are more likely to consider it the voters problem, not theirs.
When the status of elites is fundamentally threatened by a force that holds them up as the problem, they are far more likely to hunker down and blame anything other than themselves.
If anything, I'm surprised that we haven't yet heard the argument that the British public were voting in favour of More Europe.
''Most of what the public wants banks for is to store their cash, have some access to it, earn a bit of interest if they have savings and get a loan if they need one. Unfortunately that model doesnt pay bankers super bonuses. But if they want to earn them they should risk their own money.''
Many banks used to be 'boring'. Indeed, that was their marketing strategy! Now it seems those type of banks aren't allowed to exist.
it's not just the banks; the regulators seem to have lost the plot as well, being overly concerned about the low number of people switching.
This *might* be a bad thing if people are prevented from moving for structural reasons, though in reality those reasons don't exist to any great level. More likely, people are largely content with the job their banks are doing.
The number one priority for the great majority of banking customers is not interest rates; it's that their money is safe and accessible and that their personal data is secure. Beyond that, customer service is likely to rank as highly as interest rates. For borrowers, the priorities are probably a little different but all the same, the classic supply-demand market dynamics simply don't apply to anything like the same extent as in, say, retail because 'price' (i.e. interest rates) is not a particularly strong driving factor in consumer behaviour.
I'd say that's more a function of UK retail banks dont charge for their service, and the people who pay for everyone else are just happy to actually have an account.
Even if Trump doesn't win, there is going to be a lot of head scratching among the Washington Elite that a man so unsuitable for office while spending bugger all on tv ads managed to even be even close in the polls.
Why?
If the reaction of the EU is anything to go by, they are more likely to consider it the voters problem, not theirs.
When the status of elites is fundamentally threatened by a force that holds them up as the problem, they are far more likely to hunker down and blame anything other than themselves.
If anything, I'm surprised that we haven't yet heard the argument that the British public were voting in favour of More Europe.
More Europe will certainly be the result, it's just that the UK will no longer be part of it.
The number one priority for the great majority of banking customers is not interest rates; it's that their money is safe and accessible and that their personal data is secure.
For personal customers, security is completely identical in all of the banks due to FSCS.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Is that true? It was certainly true in London, but I remember thinking as I walked over Waterloo Bridge on June 23, "I bet these people have never been north of Watford."
No Remain had 40k leave had 30k and more money in the end.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think wishful thinking.
I base.
Casino.
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Indeed. The campaigns were fairly irrelevant, to my mind, apart from Project Fear scoring too many own goals (Obama's Queue and the Punishment Budget were particularly stupid errors)
The main thing was the product. You guys were selling the better product. Take Back Control. So simple, so powerful.
Remain lost because it insulted voters intelligence and offered nothing other than more of the same.
The institutional arrogance of the EU, and other international institutions, in their sheer disdain for the vote itself even being held sealed its fate. They looked like the past, not the future.
Funnily enough there was a patriotic centre-right case that could have been made for our continued EU membership, which could have focussed on how British influence through the EU structures leveraged up our global power, was a lynchpin of the transatlantic alliance, and cited a few of our key successes both regionally and globally. It could also have roadmapped what the UK planned to do with its EU membership in the future, how reform wasn't a one-off, but a process, and how the UK would aim to change its direction.
I wouldn't have believed it, but it might have won the referendum for Remain.
However, with numpties like Will Straw and a Mr.Burns style George Osborne running the show voters were left with little more than you'll be a poor little England idiot if you vote anything other than Remain.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Is that true? It was certainly true in London, but I remember thinking as I walked over Waterloo Bridge on June 23, "I bet these people have never been north of Watford."
No Remain had 40k leave had 30k and more money in the end.
My sense is that the Remain ground campaign was better. But the Leave air campaign had greater clarity and, most of all, the Remain air campaign repelled as many as it converted. But, more than anything, the pollsters were 'adjusting' their results and I suspect the truth is that Leave was always ahead.
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
I think another conclusion is that the papers still matter with wavering and late-deciding voters, particularly the elderly. Newspapers are a dying technology, but they'll take a long time to die.
My view is that the papers were following their readers, not leading them.
Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think Leavers had a far better GOTV operation that Remainers. Trump has the worse GOTV operation. How important that is, I don't know. But it isn't an exact copy of Brexit.
I think her .......
I base my judgement on the quality of the Leavers GOTV operation on comments made here by leavers who were involved in it.
My judgement on the Remainers GOTV operation is based on my personal experience of it. I volunteered to the national Remain operation to do phone canvassing, database management and GOTV on the day. The only phone canvassing they were interested in was finding activists to man their stalls. Waste of time.
Meanwhile the Leavers did the classic operation of identifying their supporters and getting them out on the day (or posting their vote).
However I agree with you that angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
Casino Royale of this fair parish was deeply involved in the LEAVE campaign - and was generally in despair at its ineptitude, lack of coherence, inability to organise, and so forth. He often said that if LEAVE was going to win, it would be DESPITE their campaign.
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won. The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management. Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
At key points LEAVE in my area ran out of leaflets. The LEAVE's ground campaign was also severely hampered by the short period that it had one official campaign in place. The two LEAVE campaigns harmed the preparations.
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.
States are very free with their registration data.
Has there been a surge of white males registering? I understand not from someones posting here before.
yeah, so far it's been people registering who had previously voted. I think the shy trump vote is overstated but it is def very close at the moment.
In sheer number, The Dems have 5 times as many offices in all the swing states and more volunteers than Trump. The GOTV doesn't compare, but of course, that isn't the be all and end all
The LA Times have a 'likelihood to vote' graph (take with a pinch of salt - there will be nowhere near the number indicated) - showing republicans more likely than democrats.
NB As of yesterday most people thought Clinton would win - wonder what tomorrow's poll will show.
New CNN poll has Trump +1 in Colorado and -1 in Pennsylvania. If this reflects the truth of the situation, Hillary is in major trouble. Even a slight further shift to Trump, and this enters landslide territory (in the EC vote), even if he has only a couple of percentage points lead nationally.
GOTV is the big unknown. Will the Dems have their usual organizational advantage or is their base of support so soft it will not meet expectations? How many non-voters will Trump bring to the voting booths? This really is an unusually unpredictable election.
States are very free with their registration data.
Has there been a surge of white males registering? I understand not from someones posting here before.
Voter registration varies by state, but closes between 7 and 31 days before the vote.
But, more than anything, the pollsters were 'adjusting' their results and I suspect the truth is that Leave was always ahead.
The pollsters may have been fiddling, more likely it was just an honest mistake. Either way, research after the event suggested that, on average, they were all bent away from Leave and towards Remain to varying degrees. Although some were an awful lot better than others.
Leave was probably ahead all along and, although we can never prove it, it seems quite likely that the short campaign made little difference to anything, because attitudes were already entrenched. But, hey, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Most of those banks decided that being "adventurous" was the way forward instead of sticking to the boring stuff. NR had 125% mortgages which sort of says it was sticking its neck out where it shouldnt.
It was doing exactly what you suggested a bank should do, i.e. sticking to boring lending , but it was doing it badly. It was a failure of management, and a failure of regulation (an unsurprising one, given that Brown had deliberately dismantled banking supervision).
You said that banks 'store cash'. Of course they don't. The most basic banking model is to borrow cash from some customers and lend it to other customers.
Not exactly 'boring' lending. All retail banks essentially borrow short and lend long, but the Rock obtained over three quarters of its money on the capital markets rather than from a retail base. That, and a rather 'exciting' mortgage book, spelt disaster when the markets became a little choppy.
The number one priority for the great majority of banking customers is not interest rates; it's that their money is safe and accessible and that their personal data is secure.
For personal customers, security is completely identical in all of the banks due to FSCS.
In theory, yes. In practice, if you were ever likely to need it, you'd be looking to switch ASAP before your account became locked and you ended up with no end of paperwork.
But, more than anything, the pollsters were 'adjusting' their results and I suspect the truth is that Leave was always ahead.
The pollsters may have been fiddling, more likely it was just an honest mistake. Either way, research after the event suggested that, on average, they were all bent away from Leave and towards Remain to varying degrees. Although some were an awful lot better than others.
Leave was probably ahead all along and, although we can never prove it, it seems quite likely that the short campaign made little difference to anything, because attitudes were already entrenched. But, hey, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
And it's hard to find many examples of short campaigns that actually changed anything much - as the guy on daily politics last week was arguing. The build in yes vote during the indyref is one of the few examples I can think of, and even that didn't quite make it.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think wishful thinking.
I base.
Casino.
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Indeed. The campaigns were fairly irrelevant, to my mind, apart from Project Fear scoring too many own goals (Obama's Queue and the Punishment Budget were particularly stupid errors)
The main thing was the product. You guys were selling the better product. Take Back Control. So simple, so powerful.
Remain lost because it insulted voters intelligence and offered nothing other than more of the same.
The institutional arrogance of the EU, and other international institutions, in their sheer disdain for the vote itself even being held sealed its fate. They looked like the past, not the future.
Funnily enough there was a patriotic centre-right case that could have been made for our continued EU membership, which could have focussed on how British influence through the EU structures leveraged up our global power, was a lynchpin of the transatlantic alliance, and cited a few of our key successes both regionally and globally. It could also have roadmapped what the UK planned to do with its EU membership in the future, how reform wasn't a one-off, but a process, and how the UK would aim to change its direction.
I wouldn't have believed it, but it might have won the referendum for Remain.
However, with numpties like Will Straw and a Mr.Burns style George Osborne running the show voters were left with little more than you'll be a poor little England idiot if you vote anything other than Remain.
I wouldn't have called that centre-right per se, I think that could have been a truly patriotic, centrist and moderate case for the EU. But it required some hard thinking about what kind of EU we'd like to see in the future, and instead we got Cameron's faux negotiation.
The nearest I heard the above was from Ruth Davidson in the second debate at Wembley.
Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think Leavers had a far better GOTV operation that Remainers. Trump has the worse GOTV operation. How important that is, I don't know. But it isn't an exact copy of Brexit.
I think her .......
I base my judgement on the quality of the Leavers GOTV operation on comments made here by leavers who were involved in it.
My judgement on the Remainers GOTV operation is based on my personal experience of it. I volunteered to the national Remain operation to do phone canvassing, database management and GOTV on the day. The only phone canvassing they were interested in was finding activists to man their stalls. Waste of time.
Meanwhile the Leavers did the classic operation of identifying their supporters and getting them out on the day (or posting their vote).
However I agree with you that angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
Casino.
Correct.
At key points LEAVE in my area ran out of leaflets. The LEAVE's ground campaign was also severely hampered by the short period that it had one official campaign in place. The two LEAVE campaigns harmed the preparations.
With the luxury of hindsight I think most of the problems Leave faced were from lack of resources.
They weren't fully funded and mobilised until close to the very end, and simply didn't plan for (or expect) to be fighting for a clear win, rather than a credible second place.
Personally I'd make Trump the marginal favourite now. It really is Brexit all over again. This is a global phenomenon, or at least a pan-western phenomenon. Look at the likely contenders for the French presidency, Le Pen and Sarko (who is trying to do outdo Le Pen when it comes to *tackling* Islam)
Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think Leavers had a far better GOTV operation that Remainers. Trump has the worse GOTV operation. How important that is, I don't know. But it isn't an exact copy of Brexit.
I think her .......
I base my judgement on the quality of the Leavers GOTV operation on comments made here by leavers who were involved in it.
My judgement on the Remainers GOTV operation is based on my personal experience of it. I volunteered to the national Remain operation to do phone canvassing, database management and GOTV on the day. The only phone canvassing they were interested in was finding activists to man their stalls. Waste of time.
Meanwhile the Leavers did the classic operation of identifying their supporters and getting them out on the day (or posting their vote).
However I agree with you that angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
Casino.
Correct.
At key points LEAVE in my area ran out of leaflets. The LEAVE's ground campaign was also severely hampered by the short period that it had one official campaign in place. The two LEAVE campaigns harmed the preparations.
With the luxury of hindsight I think most of the problems Leave faced were from lack of resources.
They weren't fully funded and mobilised until close to the very end, and simply didn't plan for (or expect) to be fighting for a clear win, rather than a credible second place.
According to some research someone posted over the weekend, the campaign may have made no difference whatsoever.
I was probably always going to vote LEAVE but Nabavi and Meeks by themselves were enough to shunt me heavily towards OUT.
That lofty yet weary tone of voice. Like bored teachers dealing with special needs kids. And that faux-neutrality at the beginning. Ridiculous and laughable. What a couple of plonkers.
It was certainly very hard to avoid that tone, when people were taking seriously claims such as that was an imminent risk of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers turning up in the UK, or that huge numbers of refugees would be given German nationality and come here, or that Turkey was about to join the EU, or that the UK was about to be forced into joining some EU army, or that there was a huge pot of gold available for the NHS if we left the EU, or that we'd have a strong bargaining position in negotiations with the EU, or that trade deals could be signed with the US easily, or (and this one made it almost impossible to believe that I wasn't arguing with half-wits) that academic economists around the world, the IMF, the OECD, the BIS, the CBI, the TUC, most leading businessmen, virtually all bank analysts, President Obama and Mark Carney were either in the pay of the EU or for some other nefarious reason were not telling the truth as they saw it.
I was probably always going to vote LEAVE but Nabavi and Meeks by themselves were enough to shunt me heavily towards OUT.
That lofty yet weary tone of voice. Like bored teachers dealing with special needs kids. And that faux-neutrality at the beginning. Ridiculous and laughable. What a couple of plonkers.
It was certainly very hard to avoid that tone, when people were taking seriously claims such as that was an imminent risk of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers turning up in the UK, or that huge numbers of refugees would be given German nationality and come here, or that Turkey was about to join the EU, or that the UK was about to be forced into joining some EU army, or that there was a huge pot of gold available for the NHS if we left the EU, or that we'd have a strong bargaining position in negotiations with the EU, or that trade deals could be signed with the US easily, or (and this one made it almost impossible to believe that I wasn't arguing with half-wits) that academic economists around the world, the IMF, the OECD, the BIS, the CBI, the TUC, most leading businessmen, virtually all bank analysts, President Obama and Mark Carney were either in the pay of the EU or for some other nefarious reason were not telling the truth as they saw it.
Some people seem to base their votes on emotions rather than facts.
Pe Look at that amazing poll in Australia: 50% of Aussies want an end to ALL Muslim immigration.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think wishful thinking.
I base my judgement on the quality of the Leavers GOTV operation on comments made here by leavers who were involved in it.
My jat angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
Casino Royale of this fair parish was deeply involved in the LEAVE campaign - and was generally in despair at its ineptitude, lack of coherence, inability to organise, and so forth. He often said that if LEAVE was going to win, it would be DESPITE their campaign.
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Indeed. The campaigns were fairly irrelevant, to my mind, apart from Project Fear scoring too many own goals (Obama's Queue and the Punishment Budget were particularly stupid errors)
The main thing was the product. You guys were selling the better product. Take Back Control. So simple, so powerful.
I was within .00000001mm of being tipped from Remain to Leave by fury at the posturing superiority of the Remain campaign. I don't think I was influenced in a positive way by anything in either campaign.
I was probably always going to vote LEAVE but Nabavi and Meeks by themselves were enough to shunt me heavily towards OUT.
That lofty yet weary tone of voice. Like bored teachers dealing with special needs kids. And that faux-neutrality at the beginning. Ridiculous and laughable. What a couple of plonkers.
Still, it's all over now. They lost. And we've all been daft on pb, in our day....
Your teachers were, nevertheless, probably right. It's just hard to accept when you are young of spirit.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think wishful thinking.
I base.
Casino.
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Indeed. The campaigns were fairly irrelevant, to my mind, apart from Project Fear scoring too many own goals (Obama's Queue and the Punishment Budget were particularly stupid errors)
The main thing was the product. You guys were selling the better product. Take Back Control. So simple, so powerful.
Funnily enough there was a patriotic centre-right case that could have been made for our continued EU membership, which could have focussed on how British influence through the EU structures leveraged up our global power, was a lynchpin of the transatlantic alliance, and cited a few of our key successes both regionally and globally...
I wouldn't have believed it, but it might have won the referendum for Remain.
Obama did run with this argument although its one that doesn't fit on the side of a bus so no one was that interested in it.
"As citizens of the United Kingdom take stock of their relationship with the EU, you should be proud that the EU has helped spread British values and practices – democracy, the rule of law, open markets – across the continent and to its periphery. The European Union doesn’t moderate British influence – it magnifies it. A strong Europe is not a threat to Britain’s global leadership; it enhances Britain’s global leadership. "
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
I think another conclusion is that the papers still matter with wavering and late-deciding voters, particularly the elderly. Newspapers are a dying technology, but they'll take a long time to die.
My view is that the papers were following their readers, not leading them.
Yes - newspaper editors job is to sell newspapers - Rebecca Brooks at Leveson stressed the importance they place on understanding what Sun readers think.
The view that somehow newspaper's simpleton readers are led by the nose to vote the way the proprietor decrees is sadly typical of the de haut en bas thinking that led REMAIN to lose.....
Mr. D, I think that's an incredible argument. Even had it not been eclipsed in media terms by the infamous 'back of the queue' remark, the idea that ceding ever more sovereignty to a foreign body somehow enhances our power is not intuitively correct.
Both campaigns made a great many mistakes and said a lot of silly things.
I was probably always going to vote LEAVE but Nabavi and Meeks by themselves were enough to shunt me heavily towards OUT.
That lofty yet weary tone of voice. Like bored teachers dealing with special needs kids. And that faux-neutrality at the beginning. Ridiculous and laughable. What a couple of plonkers.
It was certainly very hard to avoid that tone, when people were taking seriously claims such as that was an imminent risk of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers turning up in the UK, or that huge numbers of refugees would be given German nationality and come here, or that Turkey was about to join the EU, or that the UK was about to be forced into joining some EU army, or that there was a huge pot of gold available for the NHS if we left the EU, or that we'd have a strong bargaining position in negotiations with the EU, or that trade deals could be signed with the US easily, or (and this one made it almost impossible to believe that I wasn't arguing with half-wits) that academic economists around the world, the IMF, the OECD, the BIS, the CBI, the TUC, most leading businessmen, virtually all bank analysts, President Obama and Mark Carney were either in the pay of the EU or for some other nefarious reason were not telling the truth as they saw it.
Some people seem to base their votes on emotions rather than facts.
Don't we all though? We might process "the facts" as we see them, but we'll always put our own spin on them in our head. One person's investment is another's borrowing. Freedom fighter/terrorist etc
Mr. D, I think that's an incredible argument. Even had it not been eclipsed in media terms by the infamous 'back of the queue' remark, the idea that ceding ever more sovereignty to a foreign body somehow enhances our power is not intuitively correct.
Both campaigns made a great many mistakes and said a lot of silly things.
Brussels is no more a foreign body to the UK than Westminster is to Scotland.
Whether Trump is the favourite depends on how important GOTV will be.
I think wishful thinking.
I base.
Casino.
Correct, a lot of rewriting of history now Leave has won.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Indeed. The campaigns were fairly irrelevant, to my mind, apart from Project Fear scoring too many own goals (Obama's Queue and the Punishment Budget were particularly stupid errors)
The main thing was the product. You guys were selling the better product. Take Back Control. So simple, so powerful.
Funnily enough there was a patriotic centre-right case that could have been made for our continued EU membership, which could have focussed on how British influence through the EU structures leveraged up our global power, was a lynchpin of the transatlantic alliance, and cited a few of our key successes both regionally and globally...
I wouldn't have believed it, but it might have won the referendum for Remain.
Obama did run with this argument although its one that doesn't fit on the side of a bus so no one was that interested in it.
"As citizens of the United Kingdom take stock of their relationship with the EU, you should be proud that the EU has helped spread British values and practices – democracy, the rule of law, open markets – across the continent and to its periphery. The European Union doesn’t moderate British influence – it magnifies it. A strong Europe is not a threat to Britain’s global leadership; it enhances Britain’s global leadership. "
I was probably always going to vote LEAVE but Nabavi and Meeks by themselves were enough to shunt me heavily towards OUT.
That lofty yet weary tone of voice. Like bored teachers dealing with special needs kids. And that faux-neutrality at the beginning. Ridiculous and laughable. What a couple of plonkers.
It was certainly very hard to avoid that tone, when people were taking seriously claims such as that was an imminent risk of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers turning up in the UK, or that huge numbers of refugees would be given German nationality and come here, or that Turkey was about to join the EU, or that the UK was about to be forced into joining some EU army, or that there was a huge pot of gold available for the NHS if we left the EU, or that we'd have a strong bargaining position in negotiations with the EU, or that trade deals could be signed with the US easily, or (and this one made it almost impossible to believe that I wasn't arguing with half-wits) that academic economists around the world, the IMF, the OECD, the BIS, the CBI, the TUC, most leading businessmen, virtually all bank analysts, President Obama and Mark Carney were either in the pay of the EU or for some other nefarious reason were not telling the truth as they saw it.
In that case, try focusing instead on claims that were made seriously here, rather than ones that weren't.
With the luxury of hindsight I think most of the problems Leave faced were from lack of resources.
They weren't fully funded and mobilised until close to the very end, and simply didn't plan for (or expect) to be fighting for a clear win, rather than a credible second place.
According to some research someone posted over the weekend, the campaign may have made no difference whatsoever.
"By controlling for mode and house effects, our analyses enable us to estimate underlying trends in the dynamics of support in EU referendum vote intentions. The results (Figure 3) indicate that Leave led Remain over the entire period from 11 January 2016 onward. The size of the Leave lead varies widely—from a low of .39 per cent (4 February) to a high of 13.2 per cent (12 June)—but Leave is always ahead."
Given the volatility, it could be argued that the campaign may have made some difference to the margin of victory, but the research suggests that it made no difference to the overall outcome. In fact, the two sides ended up in almost precisely the same place as they were at the start of the year.
In that case, try focusing instead on claims that were made seriously here, rather than ones that weren't.
You mean, like the claim that we'd end up in an EEA deal? I seem to recall getting a lot of stick for pointing out that that was the worst of both worlds, and politically a non-starter.
Mr. Glenn, you think that we're countrymen with Slovenians? That we share a nation with Greece? That Italy and the UK and twenty-six other countries are one land?
I was probably always going to vote LEAVE but Nabavi and Meeks by themselves were enough to shunt me heavily towards OUT.
That lofty yet weary tone of voice. Like bored teachers dealing with special needs kids. And that faux-neutrality at the beginning. Ridiculous and laughable. What a couple of plonkers.
It was certainly very hard to avoid that tone, when people were taking seriously claims such as that was an imminent risk of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers turning up in the UK, or that huge numbers of refugees would be given German nationality and come here, or that Turkey was about to join the EU, or that the UK was about to be forced into joining some EU army, or that there was a huge pot of gold available for the NHS if we left the EU, or that we'd have a strong bargaining position in negotiations with the EU, or that trade deals could be signed with the US easily, or (and this one made it almost impossible to believe that I wasn't arguing with half-wits) that academic economists around the world, the IMF, the OECD, the BIS, the CBI, the TUC, most leading businessmen, virtually all bank analysts, President Obama and Mark Carney were either in the pay of the EU or for some other nefarious reason were not telling the truth as they saw it.
The truth is that campaigners for Remain, yourself amongst them, acted like a bunch of spoilt and screaming toddlers, and you got rightly beaten for your pains.
Thankfully rampant timidity of the remainers didn't hold the day. Also that the EU was/is already broken is the real reason we are leaving - we are the sensible rats deserting the sinking ship.
"The parallels with the Reformation are certainly striking. Church law was under the foreign jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, enforced by a clerical apparatus that asserted supremacy and was widely resented. Church taxes were paid directly to Rome.
The fact that Henry was acting impetuously - in pursuit of Anne Boleyn - is irrelevant. Such a break with Rome was possible only because the authority of the papacy was already draining away across Northern Europe, eroded by rationalism, and morally discredited by its sale of indulgences and the tourist trade of relics."
I was probably always going to vote LEAVE but Nabavi and Meeks by themselves were enough to shunt me heavily towards OUT.
That lofty yet weary tone of voice. Like bored teachers dealing with special needs kids. And that faux-neutrality at the beginning. Ridiculous and laughable. What a couple of plonkers.
It was certainly very hard to avoid that tone, when people were taking seriously claims such as that was an imminent risk of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers turning up in the UK, or that huge numbers of refugees would be given German nationality and come here, or that Turkey was about to join the EU, or that the UK was about to be forced into joining some EU army, or that there was a huge pot of gold available for the NHS if we left the EU, or that we'd have a strong bargaining position in negotiations with the EU, or that trade deals could be signed with the US easily, or (and this one made it almost impossible to believe that I wasn't arguing with half-wits) that academic economists around the world, the IMF, the OECD, the BIS, the CBI, the TUC, most leading businessmen, virtually all bank analysts, President Obama and Mark Carney were either in the pay of the EU or for some other nefarious reason were not telling the truth as they saw it.
lol. Talking of fucking ridiculous arguments, let's not forget that your side of the debate made THIS claim
BREXIT COULD DESTROY WESTERN POLITICAL CIVILISATION
Compared to hysteria like that the NHS guff from LEAVE was positively minuscule, and trivial, and hardly worth mentioning.
The truth is that campaigners for Remain, yourself amongst them, acted like a bunch of spoilt and screaming toddlers, and you got rightly beaten for your pains.
But Sean, according to you earlier today a 0.0000001% possibility is fine for us to regard as withing the realms of possibility. So, Donald Tusk was surely right.
In wanting us to stay Obama missed out the bit about "and we like you guys there, because it suits us, because we don't have to put up with all the guff coming from Brussels, but know that you guys are sat there and kind of get our view on free trade and security etc, and keep an eye on those protectionist types (yes, that's you France), and anyone going off piste on Euro armies and the like".
At least the Australians were honest about that bit to their credit.
BREXIT COULD DESTROY WESTERN POLITICAL CIVILISATION
Compared to hysteria like that the NHS guff from LEAVE was positively minuscule, and trivial, and hardly worth mentioning.
The truth is that campaigners for Remain, yourself amongst them, acted like a bunch of spoilt and screaming toddlers, and you got rightly beaten for your pains.
You don't seem to be able to get your head round the idea that I didn't have anything to do with the Remain campaign. I take responsibility for what I say, not for what Donald Tusk or anyone else says.
As I repeatedly pointed out, I wasn't on either side. I was a persuadee, not a persuader. The main thing I was interested in was trying to figure out if there was a coherent economic plan for Brexit. The fact that there wasn't soon became very obvious. What's interesting is that we are now beginning to have the debate on this which the Leave side refused to engage in before the referendum. It would have been better to have developed a plan before choosing it, but we are where we are.
Mr. Glenn, you think that we're countrymen with Slovenians? That we share a nation with Greece? That Italy and the UK and twenty-six other countries are one land?
I disagree strongly.
I believe strongly that Europe should have a political identity and that Britain should be part of it.
The idea that the EU is something done to us rather than something we play a key role in has been both wrong and extremely corrosive.
Mr. D, I think that's an incredible argument. Even had it not been eclipsed in media terms by the infamous 'back of the queue' remark, the idea that ceding ever more sovereignty to a foreign body somehow enhances our power is not intuitively correct.
Both campaigns made a great many mistakes and said a lot of silly things.
Brussels is no more a foreign body to the UK than Westminster is to Scotland.
Of course it is. Scotland is in the same country as Westminster.
I was probably always going to vote LEAVE but Nabavi and Meeks by themselves were enough to shunt me heavily towards OUT.
That lofty yet weary tone of voice. Like bored teachers dealing with special needs kids. And that faux-neutrality at the beginning. Ridiculous and laughable. What a couple of plonkers.
It was certainly very hard to avoid that tone, when people were taking seriously claims such as that was an imminent risk of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers turning up in the UK, or that huge numbers of refugees would be given German nationality and come here, or that Turkey was about to join the EU, or that the UK was about to be forced into joining some EU army, or that there was a huge pot of gold available for the NHS if we left the EU, or that we'd have a strong bargaining position in negotiations with the EU, or that trade deals could be signed with the US easily, or (and this one made it almost impossible to believe that I wasn't arguing with half-wits) that academic economists around the world, the IMF, the OECD, the BIS, the CBI, the TUC, most leading businessmen, virtually all bank analysts, President Obama and Mark Carney were either in the pay of the EU or for some other nefarious reason were not telling the truth as they saw it.
The truth is that campaigners for Remain, yourself amongst them, acted like a bunch of spoilt and screaming toddlers, and you got rightly beaten for your pains.
Thankfully rampant timidity of the remainers didn't hold the day. Also that the EU was/is already broken is the real reason we are leaving - we are the sensible rats deserting the sinking ship.
"The parallels with the Reformation are certainly striking. Church law was under the foreign jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, enforced by a clerical apparatus that asserted supremacy and was widely resented. Church taxes were paid directly to Rome.
The fact that Henry was acting impetuously - in pursuit of Anne Boleyn - is irrelevant. Such a break with Rome was possible only because the authority of the papacy was already draining away across Northern Europe, eroded by rationalism, and morally discredited by its sale of indulgences and the tourist trade of relics."
I love me a bit of Ambrose.
Not the first to compare the malignant tentacles of the EU to those of the Catholic church but does it well.
Re: the referendum ground war, it sounds like the variation from place to place was huge. In theory there was a national strategy of canvassing, GOTV leaflets everywhere Saturday-Wednesday, GOTV in as many places as could be managed on Thursday including dawn raids. Of course what actually happened would depend on the co-ordinator and number of volunteers.
In Colchester we managed the above strategy (albeit getting people to do door-to-door canvassing was like pushing treacle up a hill, so not so much of that), with on-the-day GOTV targeting two key wards. In Together had a street stall in town on referendum day. Maybe Remain did GOTV leaflets too but we didn't get one in our ultra-Remain neighbourhood (no doubt our gigantic Vote Leave banner on the front bedroom window went down a treat).
I did write yesterday that Corbyn's complete inability to lead, unify and collaborate would become clearer to more and more of his supporters. But I wasn't thinking the shadow defence minister just a day later.
In that case, try focusing instead on claims that were made seriously here, rather than ones that weren't.
You mean, like the claim that we'd end up in an EEA deal? I seem to recall getting a lot of stick for pointing out that that was the worst of both worlds, and politically a non-starter.
Richard: I hesitate to rerun the old arguments but given that you tried to claim that the financial services bit of Cameron's deal was better than you expected when, as was pointed out by several on us here, it was worse than what the UK had prior to the "deal", I'd be wary about claiming that the Remainers had the better arguments. Some of them may have but the voters are not like a judge in a court of law. This decision - like most decisions in fact - are done for emotional reasons rather more than for rational ones.
And even if they did the de haut en bas way in which they were communicated, the failure to listen to the voters and their concerns, not just during the campaign but in the weeks, months, years beforehand was fatal to even the best argument.
If you want to persuade, first of all, indeed above all, you need to listen.
No-one listened, really listened, to the voters.
Until politicians learn to shut up and listen they are doomed to failure.
Mr. D, I think that's an incredible argument. Even had it not been eclipsed in media terms by the infamous 'back of the queue' remark, the idea that ceding ever more sovereignty to a foreign body somehow enhances our power is not intuitively correct.
Both campaigns made a great many mistakes and said a lot of silly things.
Brussels is no more a foreign body to the UK than Westminster is to Scotland.
Brussels is not a British city. Its inhabitants aren't my fellow citizens. The proportion of people who think of themselves as European citizens in this country is vanishingly small.
I did write yesterday that Corbyn's complete inability to lead, unify and collaborate would become clearer to more and more of his supporters. But I wasn't thinking the shadow defence minister just a day later.
I was probably always going to vote LEAVE but Nabavi and Meeks by themselves were enough to shunt me heavily towards OUT.
That lofty yet weary tone of voice. Like bored teachers dealing with special needs kids. And that faux-neutrality at the beginning. Ridiculous and laughable. What a couple of plonkers.
bama and Mark Carney were either in the pay of the EU or for some other nefarious reason were not telling the truth as they saw it.
The truth is that campaigners for Remain, yourself amongst them, acted like a bunch of spoilt and screaming toddlers, and you got rightly beaten for your pains.
Thankfully rampant timidity of the remainers didn't hold the day. Also that the EU was/is already broken is the real reason we are leaving - we are the sensible rats deserting the sinking ship.
"The parallels with the Reformation are certainly striking. Church law was under the foreign jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, enforced by a clerical apparatus that asserted supremacy and was widely resented. Church taxes were paid directly to Rome.
The fact that Henry was acting impetuously - in pursuit of Anne Boleyn - is irrelevant. Such a break with Rome was possible only because the authority of the papacy was already draining away across Northern Europe, eroded by rationalism, and morally discredited by its sale of indulgences and the tourist trade of relics."
I love me a bit of Ambrose.
Not the first to compare the malignant tentacles of the EU to those of the Catholic church but does it well.
Real question is, who are the Roundheads and who are the Cavaliers?
I actually think the Remainers are the Cavaliers.
Now, the Cavaliers may have been wedded to an outmoded and anti democratic political model, but they had a bit of a laugh while they were at it.
Trying to forge a single European identity is bullshit, especially when the same (mostly leftwing) ideologues engaging in federalist fundamentalism are so open to multi-culturalism when it comes to external cultures.
You can't make artificial countries, and you can't magic away identities people feel. Scotland (or Yorkshire, for that matter) have very strong identities despite being part of the UK (and England, for the latter). Both also consent to being in the UK.
When we had the first referendum in the 1970s, it was about economics, not politics. We were promised a referendum on Lisbon (the Constitution with a new font) and never got one. When we finally got asked about the political EU in which we found ourselves entangled, the electorate voted to leave.
And that was against the weight of almost the entire political class and broadcast media (print media was split but mostly for Leave).
On a wider note, the EU is fundamentally unstable. It's going to fall to pieces, sooner or later. But those at the top see only the one route: more 'Europe'. More integration. Sod national differences. To heal with regional variations. One currency. One interest rate. One banking union. One army. One fiscal policy.
And if the voters get it wrong? Make them vote again.
The cultural, demographic and economic differences are ignored in favour of blind ideology. It's a battle of faith against reality, and the more measures the faithful take the sharper the discord between the two. I'd be surprised (assuming I live to the average age) if the EU outlasts my lifetime.
Mr. Glenn, you think that we're countrymen with Slovenians? That we share a nation with Greece? That Italy and the UK and twenty-six other countries are one land?
I disagree strongly.
I believe strongly that Europe should have a political identity and that Britain should be part of it.
The idea that the EU is something done to us rather than something we play a key role in has been both wrong and extremely corrosive.
That was always the problem in the end, wasn't it? Some people quite like the idea of a country called Europe. Just not that many. This also explains why the Euro can't be made to work properly.
I did write yesterday that Corbyn's complete inability to lead, unify and collaborate would become clearer to more and more of his supporters. But I wasn't thinking the shadow defence minister just a day later.
To be fair to Jezza, I don't think this was his doing. Apparently Corbyn was "overruled" by Seamus Milne, who enforced the last minute changes.
I genuinely don't understand what leverage Milne has over Corbyn and Co, such that they keep him on. It's not like he's any good as a media man. He's rubbish. Terrible.
They could surely find some mad lefty journalist who is actually halfway competent at communications.
Most odd.
Not really. Corbyn cannot lead, so he lets other people do it for him. Didn't you once say he is Chauncey Gardener?
Mr. D, I think that's an incredible argument. Even had it not been eclipsed in media terms by the infamous 'back of the queue' remark, the idea that ceding ever more sovereignty to a foreign body somehow enhances our power is not intuitively correct.
Both campaigns made a great many mistakes and said a lot of silly things.
Brussels is no more a foreign body to the UK than Westminster is to Scotland.
I'm not entirely convinced that the Lisbon Treaty holds quite the same force as the Acts of Union... but, of course, YMMV.
Comments
My judgement on the Remainers GOTV operation is based on my personal experience of it. I volunteered to the national Remain operation to do phone canvassing, database management and GOTV on the day. The only phone canvassing they were interested in was finding activists to man their stalls. Waste of time.
Meanwhile the Leavers did the classic operation of identifying their supporters and getting them out on the day (or posting their vote).
However I agree with you that angry people are more likely to vote and that applies to Brexit and Trump.
When unemployment spiked and the house prices fell, banks found they were hideously undercapitalised. RBS had tier one capital of something like 3%*. (Think of it like this: tier one capital is how much money you can lose before you get into trouble.) This was, it turned out, massively too little.
* It's a complicated decision calculating how much capital you need. Really, what banks do is borrow from one set of customers (depositors) and lend to another (mortgages, businesses, credit cards). They then have a certain amount of their own money which exists to fill in the holes if losses overwhelm the bank. Before the GFC and Eurozone crises, banks typically had less than 5% tier one capital (using today's measurements); now they have more than twice (and probably closer to three times that amount), and their loans are arguably safer.
Trump's vote, by contrast, is more efficiently distributed than Romney's. Trump is doing worse among Latino voters, religious conservatives, and upscale white voters than Romney, but doing way better than Romney among white voters without college degrees (one poll put him 60% ahead among that groups!) who I understand are overrepresented in swing States.
* A point which was not lost on the management of most banks. Want to get your share price up and get your share options to pay out? Simples, lend as much as you can, and keep as little equity as you can. Not, I'm sure, a problem that affects certain banks on Fleet Street.
The Leave campaign was crap, but Remain was crapper. The crucial difference was that Leave had a far better strapline and pithier central message management.
Remain ground campaign far outstripped Leave nationwide.
Has there been a surge of white males registering? I understand not from someones posting here before.
In sheer number, The Dems have 5 times as many offices in all the swing states and more volunteers than Trump. The GOTV doesn't compare, but of course, that isn't the be all and end all
my fave scene from a great movie
I fear your analysis might be correct. I hope it isn't and I'm currently clutching at straws.
I've stocked up for tonight's debate. Not popcorn. Too serious for that. Tasty cheese plus a good bottle of wine (with one in reserve in case Trump wins).
This *might* be a bad thing if people are prevented from moving for structural reasons, though in reality those reasons don't exist to any great level. More likely, people are largely content with the job their banks are doing.
The number one priority for the great majority of banking customers is not interest rates; it's that their money is safe and accessible and that their personal data is secure. Beyond that, customer service is likely to rank as highly as interest rates. For borrowers, the priorities are probably a little different but all the same, the classic supply-demand market dynamics simply don't apply to anything like the same extent as in, say, retail because 'price' (i.e. interest rates) is not a particularly strong driving factor in consumer behaviour.
If the reaction of the EU is anything to go by, they are more likely to consider it the voters problem, not theirs.
When the status of elites is fundamentally threatened by a force that holds them up as the problem, they are far more likely to hunker down and blame anything other than themselves.
For country dwellers like myself currently the offer is - close down all the local branches, force you on to internet banking, there is bugger all internet locally. So how do you bank ?
Corbyn isn't as funny as he used to be.
The institutional arrogance of the EU, and other international institutions, in their sheer disdain for the vote itself even being held sealed its fate. They looked like the past, not the future.
Funnily enough there was a patriotic centre-right case that could have been made for our continued EU membership, which could have focussed on how British influence through the EU structures leveraged up our global power, was a lynchpin of the transatlantic alliance, and cited a few of our key successes both regionally and globally. It could also have roadmapped what the UK planned to do with its EU membership in the future, how reform wasn't a one-off, but a process, and how the UK would aim to change its direction.
I wouldn't have believed it, but it might have won the referendum for Remain.
However, with numpties like Will Straw and a Mr.Burns style George Osborne running the show voters were left with little more than you'll be a poor little England idiot if you vote anything other than Remain.
Actual loss is 1.2
Tories were on 39.6 and now on 40.4 --> 40 - 40 unchanged but increase 0.8
LibDems were on 5.6 and now on 6.0 --> 6 - 6 unchanged but increase 0.4
NB As of yesterday most people thought Clinton would win - wonder what tomorrow's poll will show.
Leave was probably ahead all along and, although we can never prove it, it seems quite likely that the short campaign made little difference to anything, because attitudes were already entrenched. But, hey, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Not exactly 'boring' lending. All retail banks essentially borrow short and lend long, but the Rock obtained over three quarters of its money on the capital markets rather than from a retail base. That, and a rather 'exciting' mortgage book, spelt disaster when the markets became a little choppy.
Like I say, it's security *and* accessibility.
Con 42.1%
Lab 27.5%
Con maj 100
(before boundary changes)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
The nearest I heard the above was from Ruth Davidson in the second debate at Wembley.
PS I think you mean Will Straw CBE.
Cameron really was a twunt.
They weren't fully funded and mobilised until close to the very end, and simply didn't plan for (or expect) to be fighting for a clear win, rather than a credible second place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/jeremy-corbyns-supporters-have-been-writing-poems-about-him-and/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/aug/28/poets-for-jeremy-corbyn
"As citizens of the United Kingdom take stock of their relationship with the EU, you should be proud that the EU has helped spread British values and practices – democracy, the rule of law, open markets – across the continent and to its periphery. The European Union doesn’t moderate British influence – it magnifies it. A strong Europe is not a threat to Britain’s global leadership; it enhances Britain’s global leadership. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/as-your-friend-let-me-tell-you-that-the-eu-makes-britain-even-gr/
The view that somehow newspaper's simpleton readers are led by the nose to vote the way the proprietor decrees is sadly typical of the de haut en bas thinking that led REMAIN to lose.....
Both campaigns made a great many mistakes and said a lot of silly things.
... and then he went and told us to get to the back of the queue.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/12/leave-always-lead/
Given the volatility, it could be argued that the campaign may have made some difference to the margin of victory, but the research suggests that it made no difference to the overall outcome. In fact, the two sides ended up in almost precisely the same place as they were at the start of the year.
I disagree strongly.
From yesterday 's Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/25/did-henry-viiis-tudor-brexit-lead-to-englands-trading-glory-or-a/
"The parallels with the Reformation are certainly striking. Church law was under the foreign jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, enforced by a clerical apparatus that asserted supremacy and was widely resented. Church taxes were paid directly to Rome.
The fact that Henry was acting impetuously - in pursuit of Anne Boleyn - is irrelevant. Such a break with Rome was possible only because the authority of the papacy was already draining away across Northern Europe, eroded by rationalism, and morally discredited by its sale of indulgences and the tourist trade of relics."
In wanting us to stay Obama missed out the bit about "and we like you guys there, because it suits us, because we don't have to put up with all the guff coming from Brussels, but know that you guys are sat there and kind of get our view on free trade and security etc, and keep an eye on those protectionist types (yes, that's you France), and anyone going off piste on Euro armies and the like".
At least the Australians were honest about that bit to their credit.
As I repeatedly pointed out, I wasn't on either side. I was a persuadee, not a persuader. The main thing I was interested in was trying to figure out if there was a coherent economic plan for Brexit. The fact that there wasn't soon became very obvious. What's interesting is that we are now beginning to have the debate on this which the Leave side refused to engage in before the referendum. It would have been better to have developed a plan before choosing it, but we are where we are.
The idea that the EU is something done to us rather than something we play a key role in has been both wrong and extremely corrosive.
@SeanT
"BREXIT COULD DESTROY WESTERN POLITICAL CIVILISATION"
Actually, on the eve of a possible Trump victory that no longer looks completely radio rental.
In Colchester we managed the above strategy (albeit getting people to do door-to-door canvassing was like pushing treacle up a hill, so not so much of that), with on-the-day GOTV targeting two key wards. In Together had a street stall in town on referendum day. Maybe Remain did GOTV leaflets too but we didn't get one in our ultra-Remain neighbourhood (no doubt our gigantic Vote Leave banner on the front bedroom window went down a treat).
We were similarly warned that these would result in the disaster by the handwringers - but in the end they turned out to be rather beneficial.
And even if they did the de haut en bas way in which they were communicated, the failure to listen to the voters and their concerns, not just during the campaign but in the weeks, months, years beforehand was fatal to even the best argument.
If you want to persuade, first of all, indeed above all, you need to listen.
No-one listened, really listened, to the voters.
Until politicians learn to shut up and listen they are doomed to failure.
I actually think the Remainers are the Cavaliers.
Now, the Cavaliers may have been wedded to an outmoded and anti democratic political model, but they had a bit of a laugh while they were at it.
Trying to forge a single European identity is bullshit, especially when the same (mostly leftwing) ideologues engaging in federalist fundamentalism are so open to multi-culturalism when it comes to external cultures.
You can't make artificial countries, and you can't magic away identities people feel. Scotland (or Yorkshire, for that matter) have very strong identities despite being part of the UK (and England, for the latter). Both also consent to being in the UK.
When we had the first referendum in the 1970s, it was about economics, not politics. We were promised a referendum on Lisbon (the Constitution with a new font) and never got one. When we finally got asked about the political EU in which we found ourselves entangled, the electorate voted to leave.
And that was against the weight of almost the entire political class and broadcast media (print media was split but mostly for Leave).
On a wider note, the EU is fundamentally unstable. It's going to fall to pieces, sooner or later. But those at the top see only the one route: more 'Europe'. More integration. Sod national differences. To heal with regional variations. One currency. One interest rate. One banking union. One army. One fiscal policy.
And if the voters get it wrong? Make them vote again.
The cultural, demographic and economic differences are ignored in favour of blind ideology. It's a battle of faith against reality, and the more measures the faithful take the sharper the discord between the two. I'd be surprised (assuming I live to the average age) if the EU outlasts my lifetime.
[I do apologise for the wall of text].
Leavers are wrong and repulsive.