So the Trump rampers only have 2 polls now with a Trump lead...
I have this peculiar feeling .... it comes upon me every four years in late October .... that Rasmussen and IBD/TIPP will trend to the average of the Clinton lead by polling day ....
The IDB/TIPP Obama Surge from Obama +1 to Obama +8 in 13 days was quite the spectacular.
Jump in the young voters. Artificiallynlarge jump, I suspect weightings again.
@JackW did you see the Princeton Election Consortium article on the LA times poll. Reweighed to standard weightings it almost perfectly matches the RCP poll average.
I did. The LA Tracker was a useful experiment but they made a dogs breakfast of the sample and it's been a pile of doings from the off.
The Hispanic numbers are "interesting" - Trump almost hitting Bush levels of support, much better than Romney and 100% more than the Hispanic only polls undertaken this cycle. I put it down to Mexican wall builders and taco van operators nationwide.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
The difference is that 350 million was a deliberate lie. 4,300 is reasonably accurate. The average family income is roughly 43,000 and the currency has devalued 10%. When Turkey doesn't join...the NHS has a crisis and/or the economy goes pear shaped 17,000,000 pitchforks will come out and they're they're going to be aimed squarely at Boris Johnson's backside
- A currency fall of 10% affects imports, it does not make everyone 10% poorer. - The £4,300 figure was for 2030, the currency will have risen again by then - its value now is partly down to uncertainty.
So the Trump rampers only have 2 polls now with a Trump lead...
I have this peculiar feeling .... it comes upon me every four years in late October .... that Rasmussen and IBD/TIPP will trend to the average of the Clinton lead by polling day ....
The IDB/TIPP Obama Surge from Obama +1 to Obama +8 in 13 days was quite the spectacular.
Be fair .... wasn't it the Obama promise of free American owls in the last week that had him surge ?
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income.
The £4300 wasn't worse case Brexit and best case Remain, it was mid-case Brexit and standard Remain. Worse case Brexit was -£5,200. Also, GDP doesn't track exactly to household income but it does reflect the fact that in a lower GDP country we will have poorer public services, a weaker Army and worse infrastructure.
"The worst of the three outcomes was for the Russian-style WTO membership, where GDP is 7.5% smaller, the equivalent of £5,200 per household. The hole in the public finances is £45bn. Under the Canadian model, highlighted by the chancellor, GDP is 6.2% smaller, the equivalent of £4,300 per household. The knock to tax receipts, the Treasury says, is £36bn.
Finally, under the Norwegian-style EEA model, the UK economy is forecast to be 3.8% smaller, the equivalent of £2,600 per household. Tax receipts are £20bn smaller, equating to 4p on the basic rate of tax
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
Of course it won't happen it's just a good way of reminding everyone what Leave promised us during the campaign and to keep embarrassing them with it.
Alternatively it is a good way of reminding everyone that we voted Leave.
Remainers think everything helps their cause of staying in the EU. In reality, the cause has already sailed.
It's useful because it ties the tory right to the NHS.
http://commentcentral.co.uk/is-next-year-general-election-year/ "So an early election needs to happen. Parliament must better reflect the will of the British people. The PM needs to learn the lesson of King Canute. Some things are inevitable and cannot be stopped. The people have spoken. Politicians must listen and take heed." Peter Bingle
Mr. D, the Government can't forecast the deficit a few years into the future. The idea they can accurately predict the UK's economic performance (and also demographics) inside and outside the EU, necessarily therefore also predicting the deal we'll negotiate not only with the EU upon leaving but with other countries, is optimistic.
It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.
The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.
I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President. Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.
Indeed Silver got the 2014 mid terms, the 2015 UK general election, EU ref and the GOP primaries wrong
Did he actually make quantitative predictions for all of those? I can't see one for Brexit on his site.
But the essential point about Silver's models is that they are estimating probabilities. If someone says there's a 70% chance of something happening, then obviously they're not proved "wrong" if it doesn't happen. On their estimate, it would fail to happen 30% of the time anyway.
The only way of proving his approach is wrong would be to take a large number of his predictions and look at the statistics of his success rate.
In practical terms, his analysis inevitably relies heavily on the accuracy of the polling data. He can try to estimate the probability of the polls being systematically wrong, but that's much, much harder than the simple calculation of sampling error.
I think the Clinton/Trump question now boils down to whether there is a large systematic error in the polls - nothing at all to do with Nate Silver's track record. The arguments being made here for a large error seem speculative and unquantifiable. I think we're just going to have to wait for the result.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income.
The £4300 wasn't worse case Brexit and best case Remain, it was mid-case Brexit and standard Remain. Worse case Brexit was -£5,200. Also, GDP doesn't track exactly to household income but it does reflect the fact that we in a lower GDP country we will have poorer public services, a weaker Army and worse infrastructure.
"The worst of the three outcomes was for the Russian-style WTO membership, where GDP is 7.5% smaller, the equivalent of £5,200 per household. The hole in the public finances is £45bn. Under the Canadian model, highlighted by the chancellor, GDP is 6.2% smaller, the equivalent of £4,300 per household. The knock to tax receipts, the Treasury says, is £36bn.
Finally, under the Norwegian-style EEA model, the UK economy is forecast to be 3.8% smaller, the equivalent of £2,600 per household. Tax receipts are £20bn smaller, equating to 4p on the basic rate of tax
£4,300 was worst-case for a bilateral deal, rather than EEA or WTO, and was the headline figure used.
Assumptions for Leave included no new trade deals beyond what we already have via the EU by 2030, and potential deregulation benefits were hand-waved away entirely.
Assumptions for Remain included completion of FTAs under negotiation (like the American one which has now stalled, and the Indian one which has been under negotiation for the best part of a decade and got nowhere) and completion of digital, energy, and services single market.
The difference is that 350 million was a deliberate lie. 4,300 is reasonably accurate. The average family income is roughly 43,000 and the currency has devalued 10%. When Turkey doesn't join...the NHS has a crisis and/or the economy goes pear shaped 17,000,000 pitchforks will come out and they're they're going to be aimed squarely at Boris Johnson's backside
This is a very funny post Roger. You have cleverly combined three entirely different things — a forecast for UK GDP in 2030, a made up average family income (disposable income is around £26k), and the current rough value of the pound in 2016 — to come up with an entirely bogus claim that the government was right. The best line in your joke is when you call this fantastic combination of errors and forecasts "reasonably accurate". Have you considered a career in politics?
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
The difference is that 350 million was a deliberate lie. 4,300 is reasonably accurate. The average family income is roughly 43,000 and the currency has devalued 10%. When Turkey doesn't join...the NHS has a crisis and/or the economy goes pear shaped 17,000,000 pitchforks will come out and they're they're going to be aimed squarely at Boris Johnson's backside
You think that 10% devaluation is still going to be the case by 2030 ?
Reality Check verdict: We are not giving £20bn a year or £350m a week to Brussels - Britain pays £276m a week to the EU budget because of the rebate.
So not just the correct order of magnitude, it rounds to the same thing if you round 50 down. Yes it is out by quite a lot, but if it really mattered to people why did it not drive them into the remain camp in droves when the truth was revealed? My link is from 22 April.
It's a bit like h*locaust denial, which in practice is usually h*locaust minimisation, which doesn't really work because you have to get all the way down from 6m to, say, the low hundreds before the numerical difference is enough to make a qualitative difference to what was done.
Some of the predictions in that article have already happened. The other bad things will almost certainly happen, but possibly not to the extent predicted. On the whole I would say the predictions are at the pessimistic end of the probability spectrum. You would expect those arguing against to be pessimistic and those in favour to be optimistic.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
The difference is that 350 million was a deliberate lie. 4,300 is reasonably accurate. The average family income is roughly 43,000 and the currency has devalued 10%. When Turkey doesn't join...the NHS has a crisis and/or the economy goes pear shaped 17,000,000 pitchforks will come out and they're they're going to be aimed squarely at Boris Johnson's backside
You think that 10% devaluation is still going to be the case by 2030 ?
I never make predictions, especially not about the future. It might all go very well, and it might all go very badly. Most likely it'll be something in between.
So not just the correct order of magnitude, it rounds to the same thing if you round 50 down. Yes it is out by quite a lot, but if it really mattered to people why did it not drive them into the remain camp in droves when the truth was revealed? My link is from 22 April.
The voters don't pay that much attention, and getting a debunking through is quite tricky: Often debunking a lie will actually end up strengthening belief in the original lie.
A lot of the time they'll just hear the various claims and counter-claims and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle. This probably isn't a bad heuristic in a lot of cases, but the fact that the voters do this incentivizes campaigns to egg up their claims and counter-claims.
@SquareRoot Five frogs sitting on a log; one decided to jump. How many frogs are now sitting on a log?
Either four or five. A frog decided to jump. If it does not follow through on that decision, then five.
Or it could follow through on that decision, and jump. It may just jump upwards and land back on the log. In which case five.
Or it could follow through on that decision, jump, landing not back on the log. In which case four. (Assuming no other frogs have had the same idea in the meantime.)
Caught up with the race this morning. One thing that struck me was how the F1 world seems to believe that Rosberg deserves the title this year. They conveniently forget that Hamilton was coasting to a victory in Sepang and that's a 28 point swing alone, forgetting prior failures and starting from the back of the grid due to penalties. Rosberg has been gifted the title by the Mercedes engineering b-team.
"But Britain's problem, both inside and outside the EU, was that it didn't know what it wanted. It knew what it didn't want, but that's a very different thing."
I disagree. It wants a common market but not a common country. It thought that was on offer but it wasn't.
Two remarks.
The important one is that we will leave the common market when we leave the EU. At best we substitute one set of deficiencies for another, although some people may think we are better off overall. Alistair's comment that we don't know what we want inside or outside the EU stands, I think
I don't think the EU is a country. I accept however that some people are opposed to the EU, whatever it is. Which is the important point.
It's a supranational construct rather than the superstate that nobody important wants. Not being a superstate is a large part of the EU's problem. It's neither beast nor fowl. "For our country!" has more of a ring than "For our supranational construct!"
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
If I may answer for Robert:
It's Sarkozy who runs the risk of not making second, in that scenario. A swing back to Hollande (in the wake of a national disaster) or an effective campaign by Macron make him vulnerable.
Incidentally I consider 1.8 (Ladbrokes) on Juppé good value and have put another £100 in addition to the £90 I have at 2.
@MarqueeMark My point is that the decision has been taken but the action has not yet happened. It is therefore wrong to say "we are leaving the EU end of". We are probably leaving the EU, but the chance that we will after all remain is well above zero.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
@MarqueeMark My point is that the decision has been taken but the action has not yet happened. It is therefore wrong to say "we are leaving the EU end of". We are probably leaving the EU, but the chance that we will after all remain is well above zero.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
Le Pen gets c. 30% in the first round irrespective of her opponent. If it's Juppé, then she's ten point adrift in second.
If Sarkozy is the Les Republicains candidate, then there are five candidates between 12% and 20%: Sarkozy, Macron, Bayrou, Hollande, and Melenchon.
My guess is that Juppé is the LR candidate, but if he's not it could be a very interesting catfight to see who runs against Le Pen.
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
It means LR might not make the second round in which case Le Pen faces off against Macron or Hollande, which is a contest she had a good shot at winninf, she may even be the favourite in a run off vs Hollande.
Doesn't matter since Juppé is going to win the nomination, first round and run off.
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
If I may answer for Robert:
It's Sarkozy who runs the risk of not making second, in that scenario. A swing back to Hollande (in the wake of a national disaster) or an effective campaign by Macron make him vulnerable.
Incidentally I consider 1.8 (Ladbrokes) on Juppé good value and have put another £100 in addition to the £90 I have at 2.
If I were ultra-cynical, I would note that the Prime Minister's approach to Brexit could have been designed to leave this possibility open for as long as possible.
Na na na na na.. your lies were worse than our lies..
Who cares? Its over. We are leaving the EU end of.
Mostly I agree with you. However the economic costs could still happen at the bad levels predicted, depending on how Brexit pans out. As we still have some input on what happens, it's worth being aware of these potential costs
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
I think Juppe is as nailed on as DSK was at the same time before the 2010 election. Of course Juppe could blow his chances in a spectacular, self destructive act like trying to rape a hotel maid.... or placing his whole legacy on a dubious mid term plebiscite
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.
£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.
£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.
The difference is that 350 million was a deliberate lie. 4,300 is reasonably accurate.
You have that the wrong way round, Roger. £350m was based on real (if misleading) figures. £4300 was based on illogical division.
Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.
Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.
Of course it won't happen it's just a good way of reminding everyone what Leave promised us during the campaign and to keep embarrassing them with it.
How can you embarrass something which no longer exists?
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
If I may answer for Robert:
It's Sarkozy who runs the risk of not making second, in that scenario. A swing back to Hollande (in the wake of a national disaster) or an effective campaign by Macron make him vulnerable.
Incidentally I consider 1.8 (Ladbrokes) on Juppé good value and have put another £100 in addition to the £90 I have at 2.
I'm also long Juppé, so I may be biased...
I think his biggest threat is the first, next month.
I would be happy going much longer once he is the candidate, if I could get 1.4 or 1.5.
The difference is that 350 million was a deliberate lie. 4,300 is reasonably accurate. The average family income is roughly 43,000 and the currency has devalued 10%. When Turkey doesn't join...the NHS has a crisis and/or the economy goes pear shaped 17,000,000 pitchforks will come out and they're they're going to be aimed squarely at Boris Johnson's backside
This is a very funny post Roger. You have cleverly combined three entirely different things — a forecast for UK GDP in 2030, a made up average family income (disposable income is around £26k), and the current rough value of the pound in 2016 — to come up with an entirely bogus claim that the government was right. The best line in your joke is when you call this fantastic combination of errors and forecasts "reasonably accurate". Have you considered a career in politics?
I think Roger has already found his perfect career.
@MarqueeMark My point is that the decision has been taken but the action has not yet happened. It is therefore wrong to say "we are leaving the EU end of". We are probably leaving the EU, but the chance that we will after all remain is well above zero.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
what %
There has to be a 5% chance of us not leaving before 2020. Because events.
Le Pen gets c. 30% in the first round irrespective of her opponent. If it's Juppé, then she's ten point adrift in second.
She's much more than ten points adrift in the second round: 20, 30 maybe. (Unless you meant swing.)
In second place, not in the second round. My phrasing was poor.
In which case you're being a little kind to Juppé, not that it matters. If he leads Le Pen in the first round - be it by 1, 5 or 20 - he'll win the second.
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
If I may answer for Robert:
It's Sarkozy who runs the risk of not making second, in that scenario. A swing back to Hollande (in the wake of a national disaster) or an effective campaign by Macron make him vulnerable.
Incidentally I consider 1.8 (Ladbrokes) on Juppé good value and have put another £100 in addition to the £90 I have at 2.
I'm also long Juppé, so I may be biased...
I think his biggest threat is the first, next month.
I would be happy going much longer once he is the candidate, if I could get 1.4 or 1.5.
I don't think you'll get 1.4 if he's the LR candidate, more like 1.1.
So not just the correct order of magnitude, it rounds to the same thing if you round 50 down. Yes it is out by quite a lot, but if it really mattered to people why did it not drive them into the remain camp in droves when the truth was revealed? My link is from 22 April.
The voters don't pay that much attention, and getting a debunking through is quite tricky: Often debunking a lie will actually end up strengthening belief in the original lie.
A lot of the time they'll just hear the various claims and counter-claims and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle. This probably isn't a bad heuristic in a lot of cases, but the fact that the voters do this incentivizes campaigns to egg up their claims and counter-claims.
Yes quite. The error was probably due to incompetence rather than malice, but it could also be a clever gambit: "OK, if we are wrong, why don't you buy a bus and paint on it 'vote remain because we ONLY pay the EU £276m a week'?"
Reality Check verdict: We are not giving £20bn a year or £350m a week to Brussels - Britain pays £276m a week to the EU budget because of the rebate.
So not just the correct order of magnitude, it rounds to the same thing if you round 50 down. Yes it is out by quite a lot, but if it really mattered to people why did it not drive them into the remain camp in droves when the truth was revealed? My link is from 22 April.
It's a bit like h*locaust denial, which in practice is usually h*locaust minimisation, which doesn't really work because you have to get all the way down from 6m to, say, the low hundreds before the numerical difference is enough to make a qualitative difference to what was done.
That's just Stage 1. Once we're down to £276m pw we need to knock off the value of EU payments into Britain. ( Because Leave promised toreplicate them all. ) Too early to tell yet but any payments into the EU budget after Brexit ( Eg to buy SM access or continue ERASMUS participation ) reduce it even further. It's not just that £350m is a lie. By using a Gross figure Leave were implicitly ruling out any post Brexit Budget payments AND double counting because they were spending part of the £350m twice. So that's at least two and possibly three lies. I say ' lies ' but of course they could say what they wanted. They were always due to cease to exist on 24th of June and wouldn't have been in government even if they hadn't.
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
If Robert means that Le Pen would have a better chance, that's not interesting in my book, It's worrying.
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
If I may answer for Robert:
It's Sarkozy who runs the risk of not making second, in that scenario. A swing back to Hollande (in the wake of a national disaster) or an effective campaign by Macron make him vulnerable.
Incidentally I consider 1.8 (Ladbrokes) on Juppé good value and have put another £100 in addition to the £90 I have at 2.
I'm also long Juppé, so I may be biased...
I think his biggest threat is the first, next month.
I would be happy going much longer once he is the candidate, if I could get 1.4 or 1.5.
I don't think you'll get 1.4 if he's the LR candidate, more like 1.1.
He *should be* 1.1, rcs but if the bookies got the odds right all the time, we wouldn't be here.
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
If Robert means that Le Pen would have a better chance, that's not interesting in my book, It's worrying.
Le Pen would be beaten in the second round by Macron, by Sarkozy or by Juppé. Hollande v Le Pen would be a bit more difficult to call (might depend on the LR candidate and what they say). So I think we can breath easily.
Robert might have a link but the regional elections show how the FN needs pretty much 50% in the first round to win anything. Even 45% and you wouldn't fancy it. 35% seems the best Le Pen can hope for barring events*.
*Actually not clear what sort of event. Terrorism doesn't boost her ratings enough.
Mr. G, do you consider all those who voted Leave to be stupid/Little Englanders?
Scotland is devolved and its position should be Scotland's position
Scotland has 59MPs at Westminster - where Foreign affairs lie - are you suggesting they are too shy & bashful to 'have a say'?
I see your counting skills are not improving , did you forget the 600 against them perhaps. Foreign affairs are at Westminster because they retain all the powers of any consequence , they are our Lords and Masters and are desperate to hang on.
Mr. G, alas that there's no English Parliament to put forward England's view.
Mr. P, that's a question for Boris, not for the Government.
MD , alas for us Westminster is the de facto parliament for England, the numbers make it inevitable, little thought is expended on teh other participants given it is over 80% of teh vote. The troughers implement policies that will get tehm more time at the trough and that means it si England all teh way , and even there predominantly London and the south east at that. North is a bit liek Scotland , downtrodden but still doff their caps and vote for their betters no matter how badly they are treated.
Le Pen gets c. 30% in the first round irrespective of her opponent. If it's Juppé, then she's ten point adrift in second.
She's much more than ten points adrift in the second round: 20, 30 maybe. (Unless you meant swing.)
In second place, not in the second round. My phrasing was poor.
In which case you're being a little kind to Juppé, not that it matters. If he leads Le Pen in the first round - be it by 1, 5 or 20 - he'll win the second.
I don't disagree!
I was pointing out that if Juppé is the candidate then he'll be first in the first round, and Le Pen will be second.
If Sarkozy is the LR candidate, then Le Pen will win the first round, but almost certainly lose the second. (Unless Melechon is her opponent. Which is not impossible if Sarkozy is the candidate. Scary, huh?)
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
If Robert means that Le Pen would have a better chance, that's not interesting in my book, It's worrying.
NO! I was merely talking of how intersting the fight for second place in the first round would be
@MarqueeMark My point is that the decision has been taken but the action has not yet happened. It is therefore wrong to say "we are leaving the EU end of". We are probably leaving the EU, but the chance that we will after all remain is well above zero.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
what %
There has to be a 5% chance of us not leaving before 2020. Because events.
Alien invasion? Zombie apocalypse? Anything else is going to take some mighty explaining to the voters....
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
Le Pen gets c. 30% in the first round irrespective of her opponent. If it's Juppé, then she's ten point adrift in second.
If Sarkozy is the Les Republicains candidate, then there are five candidates between 12% and 20%: Sarkozy, Macron, Bayrou, Hollande, and Melenchon.
My guess is that Juppé is the LR candidate, but if he's not it could be a very interesting catfight to see who runs against Le Pen.
Thanks. Whilst we're all aware that Le Pen will make the last two, I suspect it will come as a bit of a shock to the (mass) media when they finally realize that she will.
Le Pen gets c. 30% in the first round irrespective of her opponent. If it's Juppé, then she's ten point adrift in second.
She's much more than ten points adrift in the second round: 20, 30 maybe. (Unless you meant swing.)
In second place, not in the second round. My phrasing was poor.
In which case you're being a little kind to Juppé, not that it matters. If he leads Le Pen in the first round - be it by 1, 5 or 20 - he'll win the second.
I don't disagree!
I was pointing out that if Juppé is the candidate then he'll be first in the first round, and Le Pen will be second.
If Sarkozy is the LR candidate, then Le Pen will win the first round, but almost certainly lose the second. (Unless Melechon is her opponent. Which is not impossible if Sarkozy is the candidate. Scary, huh?)
We've spent the last month in agreement but explaining it badly.
Incidentally I think Mélenchon's support is capped much the way Le Pen's is. I don't think he can reach up to 18%. I mean you're never going to get a better chance than that, are you?!
Yes quite. The error was probably due to incompetence rather than malice, but it could also be a clever gambit: "OK, if we are wrong, why don't you buy a bus and paint on it 'vote remain because we ONLY pay the EU £276m a week'?"
I would be astonished if they didn't know what they were doing.
Why are you only allowed to react to what the government says?
While I know most on here are decades past their teenage years, a lot of the Remoaner(*) posting comes across as a teenage strop.....
(*) Remoaner - supporter of Remain having great difficulty adjusting to the outcome of the referendum. Can make Scot Nats appear witty and light hearted by comparison.
OK. I propose an off-the-shelf EEA or EFTA solution (Norway or Liechtenstein arrangement). The Euro-Canada farce shows that a bespoke arrangement cannot be negotiated in a reasonable time span.
I'd concur strongly. It's the most sensible default option.
I think some of the issues are that neither Leavers nor Remainers have any idea on what is going to be proposed, negotiated, and settled upon in terms of Brexit. The Leavers are in the position of the Formula 1 driver who has been stuck behind a slower car for ages, finally slipped by, only to find that the track ahead appears to have vanished into thick fog.
The Remainer car, now behind, is loudly complaining that if it was in front, things would be clearer. The Leaver car, now in front, is nervous that it will lose it's long-fought-for lead, has nothing to see when looking ahead, and is spending its entire time looking back and desperately blocking the Remainer car, rather than opening up the lead it expected to be able to do.
So Remainers are rolling their eyes at the lack of outcome, and Leavers can only focus on shouting at the louder Remainers to shut up. The pressure on making a case for what our future is going to be does indeed lie squarely on the Leavers: they are (as they have loudly and repeatedly shouted) in charge now. All Remainers can do is complain, similarly to all Leavers could do prior to June 23rd.
Leavers should be making the running in laying out what route could be ahead; complaining that Remainers aren't doing so is to implicitly cede their position to them. And Leavers are, at least subconsciously, aware of that fact, which is why they appear so scared of losing their Brexit (you don't harangue the losing side, repeatedly rub their faces in it, and shout down opposition if you're confident in your victory).
Of course, May doesn't want to tip her hand, leaving the Leavers high and dry and stuck in that position. Leavers are stuck in their uncertainty, which can be perceived as a threat to their Brexit and clutching any indications which may or may not support their position. Remainers are angered that they're having their faces rubbed in it, and picking holes in Leavers' clutched indicators, while flagging up others (and glossing over things which don't support their case).
It's divisive, and going to remain so for quite some time.
@MarqueeMark My point is that the decision has been taken but the action has not yet happened. It is therefore wrong to say "we are leaving the EU end of". We are probably leaving the EU, but the chance that we will after all remain is well above zero.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
what %
There has to be a 5% chance of us not leaving before 2020. Because events.
Alien invasion? Zombie apocalypse? Anything else is going to take some mighty explaining to the voters....
The voters might change their minds. In which case it would be politicans explaining why they are going ahead to voters. The current evidence shows voters haven't changed their minds. But as of today saying there is a 5% chance we don't leave seems reasonable.
@MarqueeMark My point is that the decision has been taken but the action has not yet happened. It is therefore wrong to say "we are leaving the EU end of". We are probably leaving the EU, but the chance that we will after all remain is well above zero.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
what %
There has to be a 5% chance of us not leaving before 2020. Because events.
Alien invasion? Zombie apocalypse? Anything else is going to take some mighty explaining to the voters....
The voters might change their minds. In which case it would be politicans explaining why they are going ahead to voters. The current evidence shows voters haven't changed their minds. But as of today saying there is a 5% chance we don't leave seems reasonable.
I would say anything that requires the creation of a national government. War with Russia, perhaps. Or the successor the Romulan Empire...
Reality Check verdict: We are not giving £20bn a year or £350m a week to Brussels - Britain pays £276m a week to the EU budget because of the rebate.
So not just the correct order of magnitude, it rounds to the same thing if you round 50 down. Yes it is out by quite a lot, but if it really mattered to people why did it not drive them into the remain camp in droves when the truth was revealed? My link is from 22 April.
It's a bit like h*locaust denial, which in practice is usually h*locaust minimisation, which doesn't really work because you have to get all the way down from 6m to, say, the low hundreds before the numerical difference is enough to make a qualitative difference to what was done.
That's just Stage 1. Once we're down to £276m pw we need to knock off the value of EU payments into Britain. ( Because Leave promised toreplicate them all. ) Too early to tell yet but any payments into the EU budget after Brexit ( Eg to buy SM access or continue ERASMUS participation ) reduce it even further. It's not just that £350m is a lie. By using a Gross figure Leave were implicitly ruling out any post Brexit Budget payments AND double counting because they were spending part of the £350m twice. So that's at least two and possibly three lies. I say ' lies ' but of course they could say what they wanted. They were always due to cease to exist on 24th of June and wouldn't have been in government even if they hadn't.
OK. Here is a better BBC factcheck (from a week earlier) which gets the figure down to £161m less any future payments for single market access etc
'It's also worth bearing in mind this comment from the Institute for Fiscal Studies: "These impacts [EU budget net contribution] of EU membership on the public finances are easiest to calculate, but not the most important: if leaving the EU significantly increased or reduced national income, the impact on the public finances would dwarf the UK's current overall net contribution."'
A pity these points were not made more forcefully at the time. But the more innumerate the claim was, the sillier it looks to be asking for it to be honoured now.
@MarqueeMark My point is that the decision has been taken but the action has not yet happened. It is therefore wrong to say "we are leaving the EU end of". We are probably leaving the EU, but the chance that we will after all remain is well above zero.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
what %
There has to be a 5% chance of us not leaving before 2020. Because events.
Alien invasion? Zombie apocalypse? Anything else is going to take some mighty explaining to the voters....
OK: war in the Middle East, oil spikes to $150, weak sterling and increasing dependence on imported oil and natural gas means that domestic demand falls off horribly.
UK government messes up Brexit negotiations, and investment falls off a cliff. House price declines crush household confidence, results in constuction activity dropping off, and puts a lot of pressure on the banks.
With the UK economy contracting 2.5% in 2017 and looking like a 5+% drop in 2018, either (a) the government falls and is replaced by a pro-EU bunch, or (b) more likely the UK government announces it is suspending our exit. ("While this government will not subvert the will of the British people to leave the EU, recent problems in the Middle East and in the UK housing market have made our economy uniquely vulnerable. Now is not the time to introduce additional uncertainty. Having spoke to Frau Merkel and M. Juppe, we have decided to temporarily pause our EU exit talks. We will, of course, restart them as soon as the economic situation permits.")
Another difference between Brexit and Trump is that Brexit still fundamentally won over two small groups of people that helped get it over the line beyond the 'left behind' vote - old fashioned socialists like Corbyn, and libertarian globalist types like Hannan. Neither of which Trump could count on to help add to the disaffected coalition.
On the flipside, Trump will still be able to rely on loyalists - those who despise Trump but just can't vote for another party out of loyalty. Not sure how many of those there will actually be though.
.. two small groups of people that helped get it over the line beyond the 'left behind' vote - old fashioned socialists like Corbyn, and libertarian globalist types like Hannan. ...
I think this misses the gorilla in the corner group of 'govern ourselves' sovereignty believers who hate the idea of getting slowly swallowed in to an EU superstate.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Can a lawyer explain this to me ? Northern Ireland doesn't have Gay Marriage. So " Support Gay Marriage " is a policy proposition. If they had refused to bake a cake saying " Support the Laffer Curve " could they have been convicted of discrimination as well ? They did discriminate but surely the sort of discrimination they used, against a political slogan, has to be illegal ? Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
Another difference between Brexit and Trump is that Brexit still fundamentally won over two small groups of people that helped get it over the line beyond the 'left behind' vote - old fashioned socialists like Corbyn, and libertarian globalist types like Hannan. Neither of which Trump could count on to help add to the disaffected coalition.
On the flipside, Trump will still be able to rely on loyalists - those who despise Trump but just can't vote for another party out of loyalty. Not sure how many of those there will actually be though.
You must have missed the memo. ALL threads revert to remainer-leaver bickering after the first 50 comments. Stop this 'on topic' nonsense forthwith.
Another difference between Brexit and Trump is that Brexit still fundamentally won over two small groups of people that helped get it over the line beyond the 'left behind' vote - old fashioned socialists like Corbyn, and libertarian globalist types like Hannan. Neither of which Trump could count on to help add to the disaffected coalition.
On the flipside, Trump will still be able to rely on loyalists - those who despise Trump but just can't vote for another party out of loyalty. Not sure how many of those there will actually be though.
It's like if Brexit had farage front and centre, and victory would mean he was leader.
I doubt Leave would have won if that was the case, and the same applies with Trump ( *100)
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
Yes it is. I hadn't realised that that was the case in Northern Ireland, until this case began.
The bakers would have been equally liable had they rejected a request by Gareth Lee to bake a cake with the slogan "Support the Right to March", or "Tiocfaidh ar la."
Another difference between Brexit and Trump is that Brexit still fundamentally won over two small groups of people that helped get it over the line beyond the 'left behind' vote - old fashioned socialists like Corbyn, and libertarian globalist types like Hannan. Neither of which Trump could count on to help add to the disaffected coalition.
On the flipside, Trump will still be able to rely on loyalists - those who despise Trump but just can't vote for another party out of loyalty. Not sure how many of those there will actually be though.
Will he though? If they despise him enough, they might still vote for him depending on how much they hate Hillary (tempered by how much damage they fear Trump would do), but they might equally vote for someone else either on the paper or via write-in, or not vote in that election at all and salve their Republican conscience by voting GOP down the rest of the slate, or just abstain outright.
.. two small groups of people that helped get it over the line beyond the 'left behind' vote - old fashioned socialists like Corbyn, and libertarian globalist types like Hannan. ...
I think this misses the gorilla in the corner group of 'govern ourselves' sovereignty believers who hate the idea of getting slowly swallowed in to an EU superstate.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
Yes it is. I hadn't realised that that was the case in Northern Ireland, until this case began.
The bakers would have been equally liable had they rejected a request by Gareth Lee to bake a cake with the slogan "Support the Right to March", or "Tiocfaidh ar la."
The previous court held the bakery liable on sexual orientation too, I believe.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Can a lawyer explain this to me ? Northern Ireland doesn't have Gay Marriage. So " Support Gay Marriage " is a policy proposition. If they had refused to bake a cake saying " Support the Laffer Curve " could they have been convicted of discrimination as well ? They did discriminate but surely the sort of discrimination they used, against a political slogan, has to be illegal ? Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
I agree. And oddly (though obviously they must know best), that doesn't seem to have been the argument that was used by their defending council, who instead went on it being against their religious convictions. What if it wasn't against their religious convictions? Can an atheist or agnostic not also choose what cakes to decorate?
All very odd. It indicates to me that society isn't really moving forward, just swinging from one side to the other.
@MarqueeMark My point is that the decision has been taken but the action has not yet happened. It is therefore wrong to say "we are leaving the EU end of". We are probably leaving the EU, but the chance that we will after all remain is well above zero.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
what %
There has to be a 5% chance of us not leaving before 2020. Because events.
Alien invasion? Zombie apocalypse? Anything else is going to take some mighty explaining to the voters....
OK: war in the Middle East, oil spikes to $150, weak sterling and increasing dependence on imported oil and natural gas means that domestic demand falls off horribly.
UK government messes up Brexit negotiations, and investment falls off a cliff. House price declines crush household confidence, results in constuction activity dropping off, and puts a lot of pressure on the banks.
With the UK economy contracting 2.5% in 2017 and looking like a 5+% drop in 2018, either (a) the government falls and is replaced by a pro-EU bunch, or (b) more likely the UK government announces it is suspending our exit. ("While this government will not subvert the will of the British people to leave the EU, recent problems in the Middle East and in the UK housing market have made our economy uniquely vulnerable. Now is not the time to introduce additional uncertainty. Having spoke to Frau Merkel and M. Juppe, we have decided to temporarily pause our EU exit talks. We will, of course, restart them as soon as the economic situation permits.")
Likely? Fortunately not. Possible? Sure.
I think you can also get through to the end of 2019 without anything as cataclysmic. Do a delay with mutual consent to make the process go more smoothly, then once you do the first one it's easier to do the second one. Leavers would be miffed but the government would still be able to make a credible claim that it was totally in the process of brexitting.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
Yes it is. I hadn't realised that that was the case in Northern Ireland, until this case began.
The bakers would have been equally liable had they rejected a request by Gareth Lee to bake a cake with the slogan "Support the Right to March", or "Tiocfaidh ar la."
The previous court held the bakery liable on sexual orientation too, I believe.
The ruling was that support for gay marriage was indissociable from sexual orientation.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
Yes it is. I hadn't realised that that was the case in Northern Ireland, until this case began.
The bakers would have been equally liable had they rejected a request by Gareth Lee to bake a cake with the slogan "Support the Right to March", or "Tiocfaidh ar la."
Thank You Sean. That's fascinating. I was aware there were legal protections for political activism due to past abuses but I'm astonished the law is so widely drawn. I suppose if political beliefs are a ' ' protected characteristic ' then discrimination has taken place. But it seems a law drafted so widely to guarantee bizzare cases. I wonder if the Cake order was a sting operation ?
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Can a lawyer explain this to me ? Northern Ireland doesn't have Gay Marriage. So " Support Gay Marriage " is a policy proposition. If they had refused to bake a cake saying " Support the Laffer Curve " could they have been convicted of discrimination as well ? They did discriminate but surely the sort of discrimination they used, against a political slogan, has to be illegal ? Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
I agree. And oddly (though obviously they must know best), that doesn't seem to have been the argument that was used by their defending council, who instead went on it being against their religious convictions. What if it wasn't against their religious convictions? Can an atheist or agnostic not also choose what cakes to decorate?
All very odd. It indicates to me that society isn't really moving forward, just swinging from one side to the other.
It's just the usual trick of using religion as an excuse for bigotry.
'We refused because we are bigots' was essentially the defence.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Can a lawyer explain this to me ? Northern Ireland doesn't have Gay Marriage. So " Support Gay Marriage " is a policy proposition. If they had refused to bake a cake saying " Support the Laffer Curve " could they have been convicted of discrimination as well ? They did discriminate but surely the sort of discrimination they used, against a political slogan, has to be illegal ? Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
I agree. And oddly (though obviously they must know best), that doesn't seem to have been the argument that was used by their defending council, who instead went on it being against their religious convictions. What if it wasn't against their religious convictions? Can an atheist or agnostic not also choose what cakes to decorate?
All very odd. It indicates to me that society isn't really moving forward, just swinging from one side to the other.
I supported the campaign for same-sex marriage, but as far as I'm concerned this is one of those difficult cases. I think there's always going to be a grey area here and the point is not so much exactly which way that area is decided so much as what happens outside of it.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Can a lawyer explain this to me ? Northern Ireland doesn't have Gay Marriage. So " Support Gay Marriage " is a policy proposition. If they had refused to bake a cake saying " Support the Laffer Curve " could they have been convicted of discrimination as well ? They did discriminate but surely the sort of discrimination they used, against a political slogan, has to be illegal ? Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
I agree. And oddly (though obviously they must know best), that doesn't seem to have been the argument that was used by their defending council, who instead went on it being against their religious convictions. What if it wasn't against their religious convictions? Can an atheist or agnostic not also choose what cakes to decorate?
All very odd. It indicates to me that society isn't really moving forward, just swinging from one side to the other.
180 degree reversal of my attitude on this when the plaintiff turns out to be an "activist" going out of his way to be a twat.
First round: Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29% Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
If Juppé is the candidate, it's hard to see anything other than a very comfortable LR victory next year.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Hi Robert, in what way would the first round be very interesting with Sarkozy as LR candidate? Would it mean Le Pen is at risk of not making the second round? Or does it also mean that Sarkozy might not make the second round with her?
Le Pen gets c. 30% in the first round irrespective of her opponent. If it's Juppé, then she's ten point adrift in second.
If Sarkozy is the Les Republicains candidate, then there are five candidates between 12% and 20%: Sarkozy, Macron, Bayrou, Hollande, and Melenchon.
My guess is that Juppé is the LR candidate, but if he's not it could be a very interesting catfight to see who runs against Le Pen.
Thanks. Whilst we're all aware that Le Pen will make the last two, I suspect it will come as a bit of a shock to the (mass) media when they finally realize that she will.
It'll come as even more of a shock if she 'wins' the first round.
And so it should. We're a little in danger of boiling frog syndrome. The extent of the gains of the FN in recent years are such that it's not remotely shocking that they could win 30% of the first round and substantially more in the second; potentially, in the right circumstances, enough to win. Rewind to 2002 and think of the shock of Le Pen snr making the run-off. That was due only to the split vote and he crashed dreadfully in the run-off as Chirac consolidated virtually every other campaign behind him. It's easy to become accustomed to each new incremental gain as it happens as 'no great step' but cumulatively the change is profound. It's how a country goes from a parliament with barely a single MP openly in favour of leaving the EU to a Brexit vote within the space of little more than a decade.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
Yes it is. I hadn't realised that that was the case in Northern Ireland, until this case began.
The bakers would have been equally liable had they rejected a request by Gareth Lee to bake a cake with the slogan "Support the Right to March", or "Tiocfaidh ar la."
Thank You Sean. That's fascinating. I was aware there were legal protections for political activism due to past abuses but I'm astonished the law is so widely drawn. I suppose if political beliefs are a ' ' protected characteristic ' then discrimination has taken place. But it seems a law drafted so widely to guarantee bizzare cases. I wonder if the Cake order was a sting operation ?
By all accounts, however the bakery was chosen, the issue became litigation because the customer was a LGBT activist.
Le Pen gets c. 30% in the first round irrespective of her opponent. If it's Juppé, then she's ten point adrift in second.
She's much more than ten points adrift in the second round: 20, 30 maybe. (Unless you meant swing.)
In second place, not in the second round. My phrasing was poor.
In which case you're being a little kind to Juppé, not that it matters. If he leads Le Pen in the first round - be it by 1, 5 or 20 - he'll win the second.
I don't disagree!
I was pointing out that if Juppé is the candidate then he'll be first in the first round, and Le Pen will be second.
If Sarkozy is the LR candidate, then Le Pen will win the first round, but almost certainly lose the second. (Unless Melechon is her opponent. Which is not impossible if Sarkozy is the candidate. Scary, huh?)
It's also not inconceivable that the second round could be Le Pen-Hollande, if Sarkozy gets the Republican nomination and then the right/centre splits multiple ways. It'd be very tight but it's possible all the same - and that run-off would be on a knife-edge.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Can a lawyer explain this to me ? Northern Ireland doesn't have Gay Marriage. So " Support Gay Marriage " is a policy proposition. If they had refused to bake a cake saying " Support the Laffer Curve " could they have been convicted of discrimination as well ? They did discriminate but surely the sort of discrimination they used, against a political slogan, has to be illegal ? Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
I agree. And oddly (though obviously they must know best), that doesn't seem to have been the argument that was used by their defending council, who instead went on it being against their religious convictions. What if it wasn't against their religious convictions? Can an atheist or agnostic not also choose what cakes to decorate?
All very odd. It indicates to me that society isn't really moving forward, just swinging from one side to the other.
180 degree reversal of my attitude on this when the plaintiff turns out to be an "activist" going out of his way to be a twat.
Lots of court cases - some very important - were brought by activists. If you were only concerned about the money, this wouldn't have happened. You just need to make sure force of will isn't a substitute for judgment.
@MarqueeMark My point is that the decision has been taken but the action has not yet happened. It is therefore wrong to say "we are leaving the EU end of". We are probably leaving the EU, but the chance that we will after all remain is well above zero.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
what %
There has to be a 5% chance of us not leaving before 2020. Because events.
Alien invasion? Zombie apocalypse? Anything else is going to take some mighty explaining to the voters....
OK: war in the Middle East, oil spikes to $150, weak sterling and increasing dependence on imported oil and natural gas means that domestic demand falls off horribly.
UK government messes up Brexit negotiations, and investment falls off a cliff. House price declines crush household confidence, results in constuction activity dropping off, and puts a lot of pressure on the banks.
With the UK economy contracting 2.5% in 2017 and looking like a 5+% drop in 2018, either (a) the government falls and is replaced by a pro-EU bunch, or (b) more likely the UK government announces it is suspending our exit. ("While this government will not subvert the will of the British people to leave the EU, recent problems in the Middle East and in the UK housing market have made our economy uniquely vulnerable. Now is not the time to introduce additional uncertainty. Having spoke to Frau Merkel and M. Juppe, we have decided to temporarily pause our EU exit talks. We will, of course, restart them as soon as the economic situation permits.")
Likely? Fortunately not. Possible? Sure.
Not sure $150 oil is going to help the EU any. It would though give the UK a mighty lift for the North Sea marginal fields (acknowledging that Nicola Sturgeon will again be claiming them all for herself).
UK Govt. messes up Brexit negotiations - I'd argue that is already priced in. The low pound is already a factor in propping up house prices as they are already massively more attractive to foreign buyers than they were at the start of the year. Demand is still huge by virtue of our increased population. The only thing popping house prices by double digit % is a mighty hike in interest rates. Whereas the next move is still likely down.
Suspending our exit would be seen as copping out by the voters. It would always be the wrong time to resume negotiations. Suicide for any politician proposing suspension. Especially a PM who has said it will happen within five months. Which gives a very tight window for your scenario to pan out.
Telegraph Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
Can a lawyer explain this to me ? Northern Ireland doesn't have Gay Marriage. So " Support Gay Marriage " is a policy proposition. If they had refused to bake a cake saying " Support the Laffer Curve " could they have been convicted of discrimination as well ? They did discriminate but surely the sort of discrimination they used, against a political slogan, has to be illegal ? Is political belief protected against discrimination in Northern Ireland ?
I agree. And oddly (though obviously they must know best), that doesn't seem to have been the argument that was used by their defending council, who instead went on it being against their religious convictions. What if it wasn't against their religious convictions? Can an atheist or agnostic not also choose what cakes to decorate?
All very odd. It indicates to me that society isn't really moving forward, just swinging from one side to the other.
180 degree reversal of my attitude on this when the plaintiff turns out to be an "activist" going out of his way to be a twat.
Peter Tatchell changed his mind over this case, coming to see it as a case of free speech.
Comments
https://twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/747000584226607104
The Hispanic numbers are "interesting" - Trump almost hitting Bush levels of support, much better than Romney and 100% more than the Hispanic only polls undertaken this cycle. I put it down to Mexican wall builders and taco van operators nationwide.
- The £4,300 figure was for 2030, the currency will have risen again by then - its value now is partly down to uncertainty.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/790475126118768640
"The worst of the three outcomes was for the Russian-style WTO membership, where GDP is 7.5% smaller, the equivalent of £5,200 per household. The hole in the public finances is £45bn. Under the Canadian model, highlighted by the chancellor, GDP is 6.2% smaller, the equivalent of £4,300 per household. The knock to tax receipts, the Treasury says, is £36bn.
Finally, under the Norwegian-style EEA model, the UK economy is forecast to be 3.8% smaller, the equivalent of £2,600 per household. Tax receipts are £20bn smaller, equating to 4p on the basic rate of tax
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/19/treasury-brexit-analysis-george-osborne-got-his-magic-number
"So an early election needs to happen. Parliament must better reflect the will of the British people. The PM needs to learn the lesson of King Canute. Some things are inevitable and cannot be stopped. The people have spoken. Politicians must listen and take heed." Peter Bingle
Publishing Treasury analysis, he said a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355564
'Your lies were worse than our lies....'
PS And your Dad smells.....
I would have thought that the collective Brains Trust would have sorted it all out by now.
But the essential point about Silver's models is that they are estimating probabilities. If someone says there's a 70% chance of something happening, then obviously they're not proved "wrong" if it doesn't happen. On their estimate, it would fail to happen 30% of the time anyway.
The only way of proving his approach is wrong would be to take a large number of his predictions and look at the statistics of his success rate.
In practical terms, his analysis inevitably relies heavily on the accuracy of the polling data. He can try to estimate the probability of the polls being systematically wrong, but that's much, much harder than the simple calculation of sampling error.
I think the Clinton/Trump question now boils down to whether there is a large systematic error in the polls - nothing at all to do with Nate Silver's track record. The arguments being made here for a large error seem speculative and unquantifiable. I think we're just going to have to wait for the result.
Assumptions for Leave included no new trade deals beyond what we already have via the EU by 2030, and potential deregulation benefits were hand-waved away entirely.
Assumptions for Remain included completion of FTAs under negotiation (like the American one which has now stalled, and the Indian one which has been under negotiation for the best part of a decade and got nowhere) and completion of digital, energy, and services single market.
Sarkozy / Juppé
(Don't knows/refused excluded - they were about 10%)
OpinionWay 38 % / 62 %
Ipsos 39 % / 61 %
Ifop 39 % / 61 %
Harris Interactive 46 % / 54 %
One new national poll (Harris):
First round:
Juppé 39 % / Le Pen 29%
Sarkozy 20% / Le Pen 25% (a decent poll at this stage for Sarkozy)
No second round polling; the status quo is a 55/45 victory for Sarkozy and a 65/35 victory for Juppé.
Reality Check verdict: We are not giving £20bn a year or £350m a week to Brussels - Britain pays £276m a week to the EU budget because of the rebate.
So not just the correct order of magnitude, it rounds to the same thing if you round 50 down. Yes it is out by quite a lot, but if it really mattered to people why did it not drive them into the remain camp in droves when the truth was revealed? My link is from 22 April.
It's a bit like h*locaust denial, which in practice is usually h*locaust minimisation, which doesn't really work because you have to get all the way down from 6m to, say, the low hundreds before the numerical difference is enough to make a qualitative difference to what was done.
If Sarkozy, then the First Round could be very interesting.
Who cares? Its over. We are leaving the EU end of.
A lot of the time they'll just hear the various claims and counter-claims and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle. This probably isn't a bad heuristic in a lot of cases, but the fact that the voters do this incentivizes campaigns to egg up their claims and counter-claims.
Or it could follow through on that decision, and jump. It may just jump upwards and land back on the log. In which case five.
Or it could follow through on that decision, jump, landing not back on the log. In which case four. (Assuming no other frogs have had the same idea in the meantime.)
Why do you ask?
The important one is that we will leave the common market when we leave the EU. At best we substitute one set of deficiencies for another, although some people may think we are better off overall. Alistair's comment that we don't know what we want inside or outside the EU stands, I think
I don't think the EU is a country. I accept however that some people are opposed to the EU, whatever it is. Which is the important point.
It's a supranational construct rather than the superstate that nobody important wants. Not being a superstate is a large part of the EU's problem. It's neither beast nor fowl. "For our country!" has more of a ring than "For our supranational construct!"
It's Sarkozy who runs the risk of not making second, in that scenario. A swing back to Hollande (in the wake of a national disaster) or an effective campaign by Macron make him vulnerable.
Incidentally I consider 1.8 (Ladbrokes) on Juppé good value and have put another £100 in addition to the £90 I have at 2.
(As noted below, I'm not advocating this, merely noting that it remains a possibility.)
If Sarkozy is the Les Republicains candidate, then there are five candidates between 12% and 20%: Sarkozy, Macron, Bayrou, Hollande, and Melenchon.
My guess is that Juppé is the LR candidate, but if he's not it could be a very interesting catfight to see who runs against Le Pen.
Doesn't matter since Juppé is going to win the nomination, first round and run off.
If I were ultra-cynical, I would note that the Prime Minister's approach to Brexit could have been designed to leave this possibility open for as long as possible.
or placing his whole legacy on a dubious mid term plebiscite
I would be happy going much longer once he is the candidate, if I could get 1.4 or 1.5.
Advertising.
Robert might have a link but the regional elections show how the FN needs pretty much 50% in the first round to win anything. Even 45% and you wouldn't fancy it. 35% seems the best Le Pen can hope for barring events*.
*Actually not clear what sort of event. Terrorism doesn't boost her ratings enough.
Christian bakers have lost their challenge to a discrimination ruling after refusing to make a pro-gay marriage cake
https://t.co/8saAO6F9j1
I was pointing out that if Juppé is the candidate then he'll be first in the first round, and Le Pen will be second.
If Sarkozy is the LR candidate, then Le Pen will win the first round, but almost certainly lose the second. (Unless Melechon is her opponent. Which is not impossible if Sarkozy is the candidate. Scary, huh?)
He would make two contradictory noises.
Incidentally I think Mélenchon's support is capped much the way Le Pen's is. I don't think he can reach up to 18%. I mean you're never going to get a better chance than that, are you?!
I think some of the issues are that neither Leavers nor Remainers have any idea on what is going to be proposed, negotiated, and settled upon in terms of Brexit. The Leavers are in the position of the Formula 1 driver who has been stuck behind a slower car for ages, finally slipped by, only to find that the track ahead appears to have vanished into thick fog.
The Remainer car, now behind, is loudly complaining that if it was in front, things would be clearer. The Leaver car, now in front, is nervous that it will lose it's long-fought-for lead, has nothing to see when looking ahead, and is spending its entire time looking back and desperately blocking the Remainer car, rather than opening up the lead it expected to be able to do.
So Remainers are rolling their eyes at the lack of outcome, and Leavers can only focus on shouting at the louder Remainers to shut up. The pressure on making a case for what our future is going to be does indeed lie squarely on the Leavers: they are (as they have loudly and repeatedly shouted) in charge now. All Remainers can do is complain, similarly to all Leavers could do prior to June 23rd.
Leavers should be making the running in laying out what route could be ahead; complaining that Remainers aren't doing so is to implicitly cede their position to them. And Leavers are, at least subconsciously, aware of that fact, which is why they appear so scared of losing their Brexit (you don't harangue the losing side, repeatedly rub their faces in it, and shout down opposition if you're confident in your victory).
Of course, May doesn't want to tip her hand, leaving the Leavers high and dry and stuck in that position. Leavers are stuck in their uncertainty, which can be perceived as a threat to their Brexit and clutching any indications which may or may not support their position. Remainers are angered that they're having their faces rubbed in it, and picking holes in Leavers' clutched indicators, while flagging up others (and glossing over things which don't support their case).
It's divisive, and going to remain so for quite some time.
--
There. Fixed it.
On second thoughts, I don't think I care.
The case doesn't appear to involve any of the following;
A ) an actual wedding,
B ) an actual gay couple
C ) a normal bakery with normal owners.
Competitive victimhood all round.
The Totalitarian Principle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060
And also says
'It's also worth bearing in mind this comment from the Institute for Fiscal Studies: "These impacts [EU budget net contribution] of EU membership on the public finances are easiest to calculate, but not the most important: if leaving the EU significantly increased or reduced national income, the impact on the public finances would dwarf the UK's current overall net contribution."'
A pity these points were not made more forcefully at the time. But the more innumerate the claim was, the sillier it looks to be asking for it to be honoured now.
UK government messes up Brexit negotiations, and investment falls off a cliff. House price declines crush household confidence, results in constuction activity dropping off, and puts a lot of pressure on the banks.
With the UK economy contracting 2.5% in 2017 and looking like a 5+% drop in 2018, either (a) the government falls and is replaced by a pro-EU bunch, or (b) more likely the UK government announces it is suspending our exit. ("While this government will not subvert the will of the British people to leave the EU, recent problems in the Middle East and in the UK housing market have made our economy uniquely vulnerable. Now is not the time to introduce additional uncertainty. Having spoke to Frau Merkel and M. Juppe, we have decided to temporarily pause our EU exit talks. We will, of course, restart them as soon as the economic situation permits.")
Likely? Fortunately not. Possible? Sure.
On the flipside, Trump will still be able to rely on loyalists - those who despise Trump but just can't vote for another party out of loyalty. Not sure how many of those there will actually be though.
[although, good points]
I doubt Leave would have won if that was the case, and the same applies with Trump ( *100)
The bakers would have been equally liable had they rejected a request by Gareth Lee to bake a cake with the slogan "Support the Right to March", or "Tiocfaidh ar la."
All very odd. It indicates to me that society isn't really moving forward, just swinging from one side to the other.
'We refused because we are bigots' was essentially the defence.
And so it should. We're a little in danger of boiling frog syndrome. The extent of the gains of the FN in recent years are such that it's not remotely shocking that they could win 30% of the first round and substantially more in the second; potentially, in the right circumstances, enough to win. Rewind to 2002 and think of the shock of Le Pen snr making the run-off. That was due only to the split vote and he crashed dreadfully in the run-off as Chirac consolidated virtually every other campaign behind him. It's easy to become accustomed to each new incremental gain as it happens as 'no great step' but cumulatively the change is profound. It's how a country goes from a parliament with barely a single MP openly in favour of leaving the EU to a Brexit vote within the space of little more than a decade.
UK Govt. messes up Brexit negotiations - I'd argue that is already priced in. The low pound is already a factor in propping up house prices as they are already massively more attractive to foreign buyers than they were at the start of the year. Demand is still huge by virtue of our increased population. The only thing popping house prices by double digit % is a mighty hike in interest rates. Whereas the next move is still likely down.
Suspending our exit would be seen as copping out by the voters. It would always be the wrong time to resume negotiations. Suicide for any politician proposing suspension. Especially a PM who has said it will happen within five months. Which gives a very tight window for your scenario to pan out.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion