politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » DPP considering complaint that the LEAVE campaigns misled vote
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » DPP considering complaint that the LEAVE campaigns misled voters in breach of election law
Another controversial Brexit court case in pipeline. CPS considering complaint that leave campaigns misled voters https://t.co/rQqvAT1Glz
Comments
-
First like Leave!
Was there really anything said by either side that was more than just the usual political use of dodgy statistics and figures? The Chancellor warned of every family being £4,300 worse off, of emergency tax rises and spending cuts which haven't prevailed either.
Sorry but this just strikes me as yet another attempt by those who wish to try and have the referendum overturned.0 -
-
Is there a law that you can't lie in referendum campaigns? Because if you're going to have one of those it seems like you wouldn't have much to say in referendum campaigns.0
-
The £4,300 a year figure was a prediction far into the future, and the tax rises and spending cuts were also a forecast (and one still very likely to happen). There is a massive difference between a forecast, which you happen to disagree with, and a straightforward untruth about the present.Sandpit said:Was there really anything said by either side that was more than just the usual political use of dodgy statistics and figures? The Chancellor warned of every family being £4,300 worse off, of emergency tax rises and spending cuts which haven't prevailed either.
0 -
Seems like very dangerous ground. There does have to be a limit - knowingly lying, for example - but partial truths or arguable interpretations have to be permitted. Otherwise, where does that leave free speech?
What are they going to go after next? Misleading 'polls' represented on non-zero-based bar charts?0 -
Let's rerun the referendum now that we all know a lot more about the options and issues.0
-
All we need to do now is show a link between the people bringing the first and second court caseSandpit said:First like Leave!
Was there really anything said by either side that was more than just the usual political use of dodgy statistics and figures? The Chancellor warned of every family being £4,300 worse off, of emergency tax rises and spending cuts which haven't prevailed either.
Sorry but this just strikes me as yet another attempt by those who wish to try and have the referendum overturned.0 -
That is why they have limited their complaint to objectively-verifiable statements of fact. All the same, there is almost no chance of this going anywhere.david_herdson said:Seems like very dangerous ground. There does have to be a limit - knowingly lying, for example - but partial truths or arguable interpretations have to be permitted. Otherwise, where does that leave free speech?
What are they going to go after next? Misleading 'polls' represented on non-zero-based bar charts?0 -
Have we seem Plato's ECV forecast as yet? If so, can someone repost? Busy at work but fancy looking at a few worst case scenario projections.0
-
Update on the probability distributions of the 538, HuffPost and NYT models:
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 24.83% 0.18% 9.33% 250-259 4.72% 0.32% 3.14% 260-269 5.12% 0.74% 4.10% 270-279 6.80% 2.90% 5.47% 280-289 5.83% 2.41% 5.10% 290-299 5.50% 3.79% 6.32% 300-309 5.88% 5.24% 6.89% 310-319 5.76% 5.90% 7.41% 320-329 5.65% 10.62% 9.82% 330-339 5.04% 18.02% 6.40% 340-349 5.79% 10.02% 10.02% 350-359 5.14% 21.57% 6.89% 360-369 3.96% 10.52% 5.45% 370-379 3.13% 4.20% 3.95% 380-389 2.14% 1.63% 2.85% 390-399 1.10% 0.85% 1.86% 400 or over 3.61% 1.11% 5.03% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 65.33% 98.76% 83.43% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 292.6 337.7 318.1 Clinton 270-up 38.7 67.8 53.9 Clinton 300-up 22.0 39.4 31.4 Clinton 330-up 10.5 15.1 14.8 Trump 270-up 15.8 0.1 5.7 Trump 300-up 7.7 0.0 2.4 Trump 330-up 3.2 0.0 1.0
Just look at that Under 250 line!0 -
And the remain side didn't bullshit like osbornes emergency budget or 3rd world war.
Some remainers are playing a very dangerous game.0 -
From 7 point Clinton lead to level pegging.
Trump consolidates the base in NC: now 90% of GOP, up from 80%. 59% of whites, up from 53. Winning white col+ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/upshot/trump-and-clinton-tied-in-final-upshot-poll-of-north-carolina.html …
If Trump is leading with college educated whites then Clinton should be very worried. All the assumptions were based on her leading with them.0 -
That's a 25% chance that Trump wins every toss up. FL, NC, NH, AZ, OH and NV would all have to go for Trump. Surely Nate is out on a limb here.Richard_Nabavi said:Update on the probability distributions of the 538, HuffPost and NYT models:
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 24.83% 0.18% 9.33% 250-259 4.72% 0.32% 3.14% 260-269 5.12% 0.74% 4.10% 270-279 6.80% 2.90% 5.47% 280-289 5.83% 2.41% 5.10% 290-299 5.50% 3.79% 6.32% 300-309 5.88% 5.24% 6.89% 310-319 5.76% 5.90% 7.41% 320-329 5.65% 10.62% 9.82% 330-339 5.04% 18.02% 6.40% 340-349 5.79% 10.02% 10.02% 350-359 5.14% 21.57% 6.89% 360-369 3.96% 10.52% 5.45% 370-379 3.13% 4.20% 3.95% 380-389 2.14% 1.63% 2.85% 390-399 1.10% 0.85% 1.86% 400 or over 3.61% 1.11% 5.03% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 65.33% 98.76% 83.43% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 292.6 337.7 318.1 Clinton 270-up 38.7 67.8 53.9 Clinton 300-up 22.0 39.4 31.4 Clinton 330-up 10.5 15.1 14.8 Trump 270-up 15.8 0.1 5.7 Trump 300-up 7.7 0.0 2.4 Trump 330-up 3.2 0.0 1.0
Just look at that Under 250 line!0 -
I'd be happy enough to offer Nate Silver 4/1Richard_Nabavi said:Update on the probability distributions of the 538, HuffPost and NYT models:
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 24.83% 0.18% 9.33% 250-259 4.72% 0.32% 3.14% 260-269 5.12% 0.74% 4.10% 270-279 6.80% 2.90% 5.47% 280-289 5.83% 2.41% 5.10% 290-299 5.50% 3.79% 6.32% 300-309 5.88% 5.24% 6.89% 310-319 5.76% 5.90% 7.41% 320-329 5.65% 10.62% 9.82% 330-339 5.04% 18.02% 6.40% 340-349 5.79% 10.02% 10.02% 350-359 5.14% 21.57% 6.89% 360-369 3.96% 10.52% 5.45% 370-379 3.13% 4.20% 3.95% 380-389 2.14% 1.63% 2.85% 390-399 1.10% 0.85% 1.86% 400 or over 3.61% 1.11% 5.03% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 65.33% 98.76% 83.43% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 292.6 337.7 318.1 Clinton 270-up 38.7 67.8 53.9 Clinton 300-up 22.0 39.4 31.4 Clinton 330-up 10.5 15.1 14.8 Trump 270-up 15.8 0.1 5.7 Trump 300-up 7.7 0.0 2.4 Trump 330-up 3.2 0.0 1.0
Just look at that Under 250 line!
And HuffPo can give me 40/1 on a Trump victory 0 -
Really? The Remain side talked about a '3rd world war'. Are you deliberately trying to discredit Leavers with that sort of nonsense?Tykejohnno said:And the remain side didn't bullshit like osbornes emergency budget or 3rd world war.
0 -
-
That huff post distribution is brilliant. 1.24% chance of less than 270 for Hillary. Anyone offering those 1/81 odds anywhere?0
-
Isn't it more that there's a 25% chance of a polling error? I.e. there's a chance they're not toss-ups at all.MaxPB said:
That's a 25% chance that Trump wins every toss up. FL, NC, NH, AZ, OH and NV would all have to go for Trump. Surely Nate is out on a limb here.Richard_Nabavi said:Update on the probability distributions of the 538, HuffPost and NYT models:
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 24.83% 0.18% 9.33% 250-259 4.72% 0.32% 3.14% 260-269 5.12% 0.74% 4.10% 270-279 6.80% 2.90% 5.47% 280-289 5.83% 2.41% 5.10% 290-299 5.50% 3.79% 6.32% 300-309 5.88% 5.24% 6.89% 310-319 5.76% 5.90% 7.41% 320-329 5.65% 10.62% 9.82% 330-339 5.04% 18.02% 6.40% 340-349 5.79% 10.02% 10.02% 350-359 5.14% 21.57% 6.89% 360-369 3.96% 10.52% 5.45% 370-379 3.13% 4.20% 3.95% 380-389 2.14% 1.63% 2.85% 390-399 1.10% 0.85% 1.86% 400 or over 3.61% 1.11% 5.03% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 65.33% 98.76% 83.43% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 292.6 337.7 318.1 Clinton 270-up 38.7 67.8 53.9 Clinton 300-up 22.0 39.4 31.4 Clinton 330-up 10.5 15.1 14.8 Trump 270-up 15.8 0.1 5.7 Trump 300-up 7.7 0.0 2.4 Trump 330-up 3.2 0.0 1.0
Just look at that Under 250 line!0 -
Well have a go at your hero's bull on the emergency budget ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Really? The Remain side talked about a '3rd world war'. Are you deliberately trying to discredit Leavers with that sort of nonsense?Tykejohnno said:And the remain side didn't bullshit like osbornes emergency budget or 3rd world war.
0 -
He's certainly out on a limb. Whether he's right or not we'll probably never know, but he looks wrong to me. IMO the NYT figures look the most plausible of the three in terms of the overall shape of the distribution.MaxPB said:That's a 25% chance that Trump wins every toss up. FL, NC, NH, AZ, OH and NV would all have to go for Trump. Surely Nate is out on a limb here.
0 -
3 million jobs. Even the author of the report said Remain were lying and begged them to stop misrepresenting it.0
-
Agreed.Sandpit said:First like Leave!
............
Sorry but this just strikes me as yet another attempt by those who wish to try and have the referendum overturned.
0 -
Yes, although the difference is semantics. The chance of a polling error sufficient for Trump to actually be ahead in all the so-called swing states x<<25%williamglenn said:
Isn't it more that there's a 25% chance of a polling error? I.e. there's a chance they're not toss-ups at all.MaxPB said:
That's a 25% chance that Trump wins every toss up. FL, NC, NH, AZ, OH and NV would all have to go for Trump. Surely Nate is out on a limb here.Richard_Nabavi said:Update on the probability distributions of the 538, HuffPost and NYT models:
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 24.83% 0.18% 9.33% 250-259 4.72% 0.32% 3.14% 260-269 5.12% 0.74% 4.10% 270-279 6.80% 2.90% 5.47% 280-289 5.83% 2.41% 5.10% 290-299 5.50% 3.79% 6.32% 300-309 5.88% 5.24% 6.89% 310-319 5.76% 5.90% 7.41% 320-329 5.65% 10.62% 9.82% 330-339 5.04% 18.02% 6.40% 340-349 5.79% 10.02% 10.02% 350-359 5.14% 21.57% 6.89% 360-369 3.96% 10.52% 5.45% 370-379 3.13% 4.20% 3.95% 380-389 2.14% 1.63% 2.85% 390-399 1.10% 0.85% 1.86% 400 or over 3.61% 1.11% 5.03% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 65.33% 98.76% 83.43% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 292.6 337.7 318.1 Clinton 270-up 38.7 67.8 53.9 Clinton 300-up 22.0 39.4 31.4 Clinton 330-up 10.5 15.1 14.8 Trump 270-up 15.8 0.1 5.7 Trump 300-up 7.7 0.0 2.4 Trump 330-up 3.2 0.0 1.0
Just look at that Under 250 line!0 -
We have a local by election in the ward where I am registered. having just moved all slightly chaotic so missed the date for postal votes (we are away on the day) - so completed a proxy form putting the candidate as my proxy.
Rung by Harborough Council Elections Dept to say unable to put the candidate as a proxy.
Thought it was odd but agreed to find someone else.
Rung back 15 minutes later to say can put the candidate as a proxy - they had had a discussion in the office about it!!0 -
Oh, I think he was right on the general point, although wrong about the timing. I don't think anyone serious disagrees with the proposition that tax receipts are at risk over the next two or three years.Tykejohnno said:Well have a go at your hero's bull on the emergency budget ?
0 -
The WW3 thing was itself a Leave deception, invented by Boris Johnson:Tykejohnno said:And the remain side didn't bullshit like osbornes emergency budget or 3rd world war.
Some remainers are playing a very dangerous game.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Where are those higher interest rates I was promised?
*sighs* Labour lies about a referendum on Lisbon, and nothing happens. Neither said in the referendum campaign was a paragon of honesty, sadly. This sort of thing will either fail or foster lasting resentment.
Edited extra bit: side*, not said.0 -
Only if each error is independent of each other - if there is a systematic error then the probability is much higher.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes, although the difference is semantics. The chance of a polling error sufficient for Trump to actually be ahead in all the so-called swing states x<<25%</p>williamglenn said:
Isn't it more that there's a 25% chance of a polling error? I.e. there's a chance they're not toss-ups at all.MaxPB said:
That's a 25% chance that Trump wins every toss up. FL, NC, NH, AZ, OH and NV would all have to go for Trump. Surely Nate is out on a limb here.Richard_Nabavi said:Update on the probability distributions of the 538, HuffPost and NYT models:
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 24.83% 0.18% 9.33% 250-259 4.72% 0.32% 3.14% 260-269 5.12% 0.74% 4.10% 270-279 6.80% 2.90% 5.47% 280-289 5.83% 2.41% 5.10% 290-299 5.50% 3.79% 6.32% 300-309 5.88% 5.24% 6.89% 310-319 5.76% 5.90% 7.41% 320-329 5.65% 10.62% 9.82% 330-339 5.04% 18.02% 6.40% 340-349 5.79% 10.02% 10.02% 350-359 5.14% 21.57% 6.89% 360-369 3.96% 10.52% 5.45% 370-379 3.13% 4.20% 3.95% 380-389 2.14% 1.63% 2.85% 390-399 1.10% 0.85% 1.86% 400 or over 3.61% 1.11% 5.03% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 65.33% 98.76% 83.43% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 292.6 337.7 318.1 Clinton 270-up 38.7 67.8 53.9 Clinton 300-up 22.0 39.4 31.4 Clinton 330-up 10.5 15.1 14.8 Trump 270-up 15.8 0.1 5.7 Trump 300-up 7.7 0.0 2.4 Trump 330-up 3.2 0.0 1.0
Just look at that Under 250 line!0 -
It's not though, is it?Richard_Nabavi said:
That is why they have limited their complaint to objectively-verifiable statements of fact. All the same, there is almost no chance of this going anywhere.david_herdson said:Seems like very dangerous ground. There does have to be a limit - knowingly lying, for example - but partial truths or arguable interpretations have to be permitted. Otherwise, where does that leave free speech?
What are they going to go after next? Misleading 'polls' represented on non-zero-based bar charts?
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.0 -
If the DPP takes this then she's a bigger fool than most already believe.0
-
You think there's *more* than a 25% chance that as we speak, Trump leads in enough states to win the Presidency by a clear margin?weejonnie said:
Only if each error is independent of each other - if there is a systematic error then the probability is much higher.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes, although the difference is semantics. The chance of a polling error sufficient for Trump to actually be ahead in all the so-called swing states x<<25%</p>williamglenn said:
Isn't it more that there's a 25% chance of a polling error? I.e. there's a chance they're not toss-ups at all.MaxPB said:
That's a 25% chance that Trump wins every toss up. FL, NC, NH, AZ, OH and NV would all have to go for Trump. Surely Nate is out on a limb here.Richard_Nabavi said:Update on the probability distributions of the 538, HuffPost and NYT models:
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 24.83% 0.18% 9.33% 250-259 4.72% 0.32% 3.14% 260-269 5.12% 0.74% 4.10% 270-279 6.80% 2.90% 5.47% 280-289 5.83% 2.41% 5.10% 290-299 5.50% 3.79% 6.32% 300-309 5.88% 5.24% 6.89% 310-319 5.76% 5.90% 7.41% 320-329 5.65% 10.62% 9.82% 330-339 5.04% 18.02% 6.40% 340-349 5.79% 10.02% 10.02% 350-359 5.14% 21.57% 6.89% 360-369 3.96% 10.52% 5.45% 370-379 3.13% 4.20% 3.95% 380-389 2.14% 1.63% 2.85% 390-399 1.10% 0.85% 1.86% 400 or over 3.61% 1.11% 5.03% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 65.33% 98.76% 83.43% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 292.6 337.7 318.1 Clinton 270-up 38.7 67.8 53.9 Clinton 300-up 22.0 39.4 31.4 Clinton 330-up 10.5 15.1 14.8 Trump 270-up 15.8 0.1 5.7 Trump 300-up 7.7 0.0 2.4 Trump 330-up 3.2 0.0 1.0
Just look at that Under 250 line!0 -
If the DPP takes this then she's a bigger fool than most already believe.
As if the standing of the legal profession weren't already know enough.0 -
Note: law professor bob Watt uses a lower-case "b" for his first name. He seems to capitalise it when it starts a sentence, though. Why doesn't he go the whole hog and spell it "bOb wAtT"?0
-
daniel a. smith
daniel a. smith – @electionsmith
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date:
B: 834.6k (13.1%)
H: 976.3k (15.3%)
W: 4.2m (65.8%)
All Other: 373k (5.8%)0 -
Even if we stayed in this might happen over a 3 year period ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, I think he was right on the general point, although wrong about the timing. I don't think anyone serious disagrees with the proposition that tax receipts are at risk over the next two or three years.Tykejohnno said:Well have a go at your hero's bull on the emergency budget ?
0 -
Surely the benefits would only be applied when we leave the EU - and thus not subject to their laws?Scott_P said:0 -
Don't disagree, but the £350m figure did have some truth behind it even if it wasn't the bottom line. It wasn't plucked out of thin air.Richard_Nabavi said:
The £4,300 a year figure was a prediction far into the future, and the tax rises and spending cuts were also a forecast (and one still very likely to happen). There is a massive difference between a forecast, which you happen to disagree with, and a straightforward untruth about the present.Sandpit said:Was there really anything said by either side that was more than just the usual political use of dodgy statistics and figures? The Chancellor warned of every family being £4,300 worse off, of emergency tax rises and spending cuts which haven't prevailed either.
0 -
Isn't there a reasonable chance that all the toss-ups will fall the same way, if, for example, there's a late swing or if the polls are systemically under- (or over-)reporting certain demographics?MaxPB said:
That's a 25% chance that Trump wins every toss up. FL, NC, NH, AZ, OH and NV would all have to go for Trump. Surely Nate is out on a limb here.Richard_Nabavi said:Update on the probability distributions of the 538, HuffPost and NYT models:
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 24.83% 0.18% 9.33% 250-259 4.72% 0.32% 3.14% 260-269 5.12% 0.74% 4.10% 270-279 6.80% 2.90% 5.47% 280-289 5.83% 2.41% 5.10% 290-299 5.50% 3.79% 6.32% 300-309 5.88% 5.24% 6.89% 310-319 5.76% 5.90% 7.41% 320-329 5.65% 10.62% 9.82% 330-339 5.04% 18.02% 6.40% 340-349 5.79% 10.02% 10.02% 350-359 5.14% 21.57% 6.89% 360-369 3.96% 10.52% 5.45% 370-379 3.13% 4.20% 3.95% 380-389 2.14% 1.63% 2.85% 390-399 1.10% 0.85% 1.86% 400 or over 3.61% 1.11% 5.03% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 65.33% 98.76% 83.43% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 292.6 337.7 318.1 Clinton 270-up 38.7 67.8 53.9 Clinton 300-up 22.0 39.4 31.4 Clinton 330-up 10.5 15.1 14.8 Trump 270-up 15.8 0.1 5.7 Trump 300-up 7.7 0.0 2.4 Trump 330-up 3.2 0.0 1.0
Just look at that Under 250 line!0 -
More legal entertainment. I think some of my winnings tomorrow will have to be spent on fresh supplies of popcorn.0
-
Very bad advice; any registered voter can be a proxy, they don't even have to live in the area. The only restriction is that they can only be proxy for one or two people, no more.Icarus said:We have a local by election in the ward where I am registered. having just moved all slightly chaotic so missed the date for postal votes (we are away on the day) - so completed a proxy form putting the candidate as my proxy.
Rung by Harborough Council Elections Dept to say unable to put the candidate as a proxy.
Thought it was odd but agreed to find someone else.
Rung back 15 minutes later to say can put the candidate as a proxy - they had had a discussion in the office about it!!0 -
Leavers don't like it up 'em.
I suspect this will go the same way as the case about Labour's manifesto.0 -
How can it overturn the referendum? Are we going to have another one? If so vox populi don't like sour grapes.Sandpit said:First like Leave!
Was there really anything said by either side that was more than just the usual political use of dodgy statistics and figures? The Chancellor warned of every family being £4,300 worse off, of emergency tax rises and spending cuts which haven't prevailed either.
Sorry but this just strikes me as yet another attempt by those who wish to try and have the referendum overturned.0 -
How does that compare to state demographics?nunu said:daniel a. smith
daniel a. smith – @electionsmith
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date:
B: 834.6k (13.1%)
H: 976.3k (15.3%)
W: 4.2m (65.8%)
All Other: 373k (5.8%)0 -
Mr. Dawning, my understanding is that Cameron's speech (on security) was rewritten after advanced sight of it caused mocking headlines of his doom-portending. I suspect World War Three didn't feature explicitly beforehand, but it does seem he was planning on a more apocalyptic speech before the papers mocked him.0
-
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU' (and said we could instead spend it on the NHS), nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.david_herdson said:It's not though, is it?
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.0 -
-
Mr. Jonnie, quite.
The EU is full of shit.0 -
Woe betide any establishment stitch up on this.
Remainers need to move beyond challenging it and start to understand just why pointless lawsuits insult the intelligence of the electorate and sound like attempts to subvert democracy.
Foolish cases like this contribute to an unstable 'us clever nobs know best' political culture.0 -
That's a great anecdote, thanks for sharingIcarus said:We have a local by election in the ward where I am registered. having just moved all slightly chaotic so missed the date for postal votes (we are away on the day) - so completed a proxy form putting the candidate as my proxy.
Rung by Harborough Council Elections Dept to say unable to put the candidate as a proxy.
Thought it was odd but agreed to find someone else.
Rung back 15 minutes later to say can put the candidate as a proxy - they had had a discussion in the office about it!!
0 -
I didn't say that - I said that if there is a systematic polling error then Trumps chances are greater than <<25%. They may still be (probably are) <25%. After all implied p(Leave)@ 10.30pm 23/6/2016 was <<25%.TheWhiteRabbit said:
You think there's *more* than a 25% chance that as we speak, Trump leads in enough states to win the Presidency by a clear margin?weejonnie said:
Only if each error is independent of each other - if there is a systematic error then the probability is much higher.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Yes, although the difference is semantics. The chance of a polling error sufficient for Trump to actually be ahead in all the so-called swing states x<<25%</p>williamglenn said:
Isn't it more that there's a 25% chance of a polling error? I.e. there's a chance they're not toss-ups at all.MaxPB said:
That's a 25% chance that Trump wins every toss up. FL, NC, NH, AZ, OH and NV would all have to go for Trump. Surely Nate is out on a limb here.Richard_Nabavi said:Update on the probability distributions of the 538, HuffPost and NYT models:
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 24.83% 0.18% 9.33% 250-259 4.72% 0.32% 3.14% 260-269 5.12% 0.74% 4.10% 270-279 6.80% 2.90% 5.47% 280-289 5.83% 2.41% 5.10% 290-299 5.50% 3.79% 6.32% 300-309 5.88% 5.24% 6.89% 310-319 5.76% 5.90% 7.41% 320-329 5.65% 10.62% 9.82% 330-339 5.04% 18.02% 6.40% 340-349 5.79% 10.02% 10.02% 350-359 5.14% 21.57% 6.89% 360-369 3.96% 10.52% 5.45% 370-379 3.13% 4.20% 3.95% 380-389 2.14% 1.63% 2.85% 390-399 1.10% 0.85% 1.86% 400 or over 3.61% 1.11% 5.03% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 65.33% 98.76% 83.43% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 292.6 337.7 318.1 Clinton 270-up 38.7 67.8 53.9 Clinton 300-up 22.0 39.4 31.4 Clinton 330-up 10.5 15.1 14.8 Trump 270-up 15.8 0.1 5.7 Trump 300-up 7.7 0.0 2.4 Trump 330-up 3.2 0.0 1.0
Just look at that Under 250 line!0 -
I'd agree with this, as a remainer we need to try and win the arguments. It's not easy, and it'll take a good while as Brexit pans out but I think the various now and planned court cases are doing the "remain" cause no good whatsoever.Mortimer said:Woe betide any establishment stitch up on this.
Remainers need to move beyond challenging it and start to understand just why pointless lawsuits insult the intelligence of the electorate and sound like attempts to subvert democracy.
Foolish cases like this contribute to an unstable 'us clever nobs know best' political culture.0 -
That's the interesting point because the Government in effect promised Nissan that the UK would remain subject to EU rules. It would be ironic if that promise was made in a discriminatory way that falls foul of the very rules the Government is supposed to be adhering to. I should also point out that any subsidies promised to Nissan would also fall foul of WTO rules if they are discriminatory. It's not difficult to make them non-discriminatory however.weejonnie said:
Surely the benefits would only be applied when we leave the EU - and thus not subject to their laws?Scott_P said:0 -
If the statement was specifically "we're sending £350m per week to the EU", then it's not really a lie. That is a statement of fact. However, it didn't take into account that £80m per week was returned as a rebate and a further £50m per week was "returned" via various spending programmes. Not a lie, just dishonest by not providing context. It was up to the remain campaign to provide that context, but as one of them told me, explaining the figure was worse than just accepting it in focus groups.Richard_Nabavi said:
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU', nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.david_herdson said:It's not though, is it?
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.0 -
The press (and TV) love to fill space with "legal challenges" or threats of those challenges. They tend not report the next steps because failure whether at first instance or failure to follow through is less interesting.Mortimer said:Woe betide any establishment stitch up on this.
Remainers need to move beyond challenging it and start to understand just why pointless lawsuits insult the intelligence of the electorate and sound like attempts to subvert democracy.
Foolish cases like this contribute to an unstable 'us clever nobs know best' political culture.0 -
And more importantly 2012/2008.MaxPB said:
How does that compare to state demographics?nunu said:daniel a. smith
daniel a. smith – @electionsmith
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date:
B: 834.6k (13.1%)
H: 976.3k (15.3%)
W: 4.2m (65.8%)
All Other: 373k (5.8%)0 -
It was cameron banging on about peace at risk on us leaving the EU,more bull from the remain side.Stark_Dawning said:
The WW3 thing was itself a Leave deception, invented by Boris Johnson:Tykejohnno said:And the remain side didn't bullshit like osbornes emergency budget or 3rd world war.
Some remainers are playing a very dangerous game.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
Thanks for that.0 -
Glad to hear it Pulps.Pulpstar said:
I'd agree with this, as a remainer we need to try and win the arguments. It's not easy, and it'll take a good while as Brexit pans out but I think the various now and planned court cases are doing the "remain" cause no good whatsoever.Mortimer said:Woe betide any establishment stitch up on this.
Remainers need to move beyond challenging it and start to understand just why pointless lawsuits insult the intelligence of the electorate and sound like attempts to subvert democracy.
Foolish cases like this contribute to an unstable 'us clever nobs know best' political culture.
I have a half-written header from Saturday morning when I was very angry with smug Remainers who seemed to think Thursday's result meant we were not leaving. If more stupid ideas like this case surface, it will most definitely be finished!0 -
Vs 2012 more relevant? Adj for demographic trendsMaxPB said:
How does that compare to state demographics?nunu said:daniel a. smith
daniel a. smith – @electionsmith
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date:
B: 834.6k (13.1%)
H: 976.3k (15.3%)
W: 4.2m (65.8%)
All Other: 373k (5.8%)0 -
Vs state demographics helps to see which groups are voting out of proportion. Though. Vs 2012 is useful as well. Both would be nice to have.Charles said:
Vs 2012 more relevant? Adj for demographic trendsMaxPB said:
How does that compare to state demographics?nunu said:daniel a. smith
daniel a. smith – @electionsmith
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date:
B: 834.6k (13.1%)
H: 976.3k (15.3%)
W: 4.2m (65.8%)
All Other: 373k (5.8%)0 -
FPT
Afternoon all,
A brief de-lurk from me, looking forward to tomorrow!
I'm assuming those of you betting are aware of this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/exit-polls-under-siege-230847
http://votecastr.us/
Very best wishes to all,
DC0 -
Surely the point is - though we get £50 million in spending schemes - we don't have any discretion on what the spending is on. And we can choose to spend it on the NHS if we are not in the EU.0
-
-
A rebate isn't a cut in the bill. It's a decision by the creditor not to demand full payment. We are liable for the full £350m pw even if we don't pay it allRichard_Nabavi said:
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU' (and said we could instead spend it on the NHS), nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.david_herdson said:It's not though, is it?
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.0 -
Not including the rebate makes it a lie. Not including the spending programmes is dodgy but permissable, I would say.MaxPB said:If the statement was specifically "we're sending £350m per week to the EU", then it's not really a lie. That is a statement of fact. However, it didn't take into account that £80m per week was returned as a rebate and a further £50m per week was "returned" via various spending programmes. Not a lie, just dishonest by not providing context. It was up to the remain campaign to provide that context, but as one of them told me, explaining the figure was worse than just accepting it in focus groups.
The odd thing about it, though, is that it was a completely unnecessary lie. If they'd said £200m a week, or whatever the actual figure is, it would have sounded just as impressive to the average voter. So presumably they wanted Remain to challenge it, for the reason you give. I'm not sure that stands to their credit, if so.
0 -
Remain put a Martin Lewis quote on one of their leaflets without his permission to imply they had his support.0
-
''I think the various now and planned court cases are doing the "remain" cause no good whatsoever.''
Cheer up, woman of the people Gina Miller is a good spokesperson.0 -
Does the £350 million quoted as our contribution include the money taken from VAT receipts, from import dues, and from the money taken from overseas aid?0
-
No, it's not. The ONS specifically talked about the net contribution not how much we sent to Brussels every week/year. One figure is not related to the other.Scott_P said:
It's a lieMaxPB said:If the statement was specifically "we're sending £350m per week to the EU", then it's not really a lie.
The ONS said it was a lie.
The Brexiteers admitted it was not true
Not very good at this original thinking are you, Scott. Stick to copying off twatter.0 -
The WTO Treaty of 1995 also places significant constraints on governments' ability to subsidise specific firms to offset tariff costs.Scott_P said:0 -
Ooooh, that votecastr website looks like the dog's dangly bitsDoubleCarpet said:FPT
Afternoon all,
A brief de-lurk from me, looking forward to tomorrow!
I'm assuming those of you betting are aware of this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/exit-polls-under-siege-230847
http://votecastr.us/
Very best wishes to all,
DC0 -
Nonsense.The rebate is not optional. So we are not liable for the full £350m.Charles said:
A rebate isn't a cut in the bill. It's a decision by the creditor not to demand full payment. We are liable for the full £350m pw even if we don't pay it allRichard_Nabavi said:
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU' (and said we could instead spend it on the NHS), nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.david_herdson said:It's not though, is it?
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.0 -
Haven't you got the memo? We're supposed to be preparing for an imminent attack from Russia.Tykejohnno said:
It was cameron banging on about peace at risk on us leaving the EU,more bull from the remain side.Stark_Dawning said:
The WW3 thing was itself a Leave deception, invented by Boris Johnson:Tykejohnno said:And the remain side didn't bullshit like osbornes emergency budget or 3rd world war.
Some remainers are playing a very dangerous game.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
Thanks for that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3912398/NATO-puts-300-000-troops-high-alert-readiness-confrontation-Russia-fears-grow-Putin-preparing-attack-West.html0 -
Good to see Double Carpet back, even briefly.0
-
Mr. Carpet, you're allowed to post more if you want to, you know 0
-
I'd like to see her interviewed more often. When she sat on Andrew Marr's sofa and told Nigel Farage that he should be his biggest fan I could scarcely believe my ears.taffys said:''I think the various now and planned court cases are doing the "remain" cause no good whatsoever.''
Cheer up, woman of the people Gina Miller is a good spokesperson.0 -
On topic, though the claim was disgraceful it should not be the subject of a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient for those putting it forward to be the rightful subject of odium and contempt throughout the ages to come.0
-
Yes and no. If I give you £350 today and you promise to give me £80 back next year, I've still given you £350. I may receive £80 today from last year's rebate, but I'm still giving you £350 today, as in the payment registered with my bank would be £350 paid out to Richard Nabavi.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not including the rebate makes it a lie. Not including the spending programmes is dodgy but permissable, I would say.MaxPB said:If the statement was specifically "we're sending £350m per week to the EU", then it's not really a lie. That is a statement of fact. However, it didn't take into account that £80m per week was returned as a rebate and a further £50m per week was "returned" via various spending programmes. Not a lie, just dishonest by not providing context. It was up to the remain campaign to provide that context, but as one of them told me, explaining the figure was worse than just accepting it in focus groups.
The odd thing about it, though, is that it was a completely unnecessary lie. If they'd said £200m a week, or whatever the actual figure is, it would have sounded just as impressive to the average voter. So presumably they wanted Remain to challenge it, for the reason you give. I'm not sure that stands to their credit, if so.
As I said, dishonest. Not specifically a lie. Though you are probably right, the leave campaign probably used it to try and force the remain side to either accept or explain the figure, neither was a good outcome for them.0 -
Haven't you got the memo that we still in EU and even if we voted to stay in this would be still happening.williamglenn said:
Haven't you got the memo? We're supposed to be preparing for an imminent attack from Russia.Tykejohnno said:
It was cameron banging on about peace at risk on us leaving the EU,more bull from the remain side.Stark_Dawning said:
The WW3 thing was itself a Leave deception, invented by Boris Johnson:Tykejohnno said:And the remain side didn't bullshit like osbornes emergency budget or 3rd world war.
Some remainers are playing a very dangerous game.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
Thanks for that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3912398/NATO-puts-300-000-troops-high-alert-readiness-confrontation-Russia-fears-grow-Putin-preparing-attack-West.html
Trying to blame that on us leaving the EU -lol0 -
Tax receipts would almost certainly decrease as a consequence of leaving the EU. The Institute of Fiscal Studies modelled the shortfall in a serious way. George Osborne then picked income tax increases and NHS cutbacks as illustrations of how the shortfall would be addressed. In fact, chancellors of the exchequer try to obscure pain and wouldn't impose their austerity in this obvious way. They would choose some benefit cuts, pension raids, borrowing etc.Tykejohnno said:
Even if we stayed in this might happen over a 3 year period ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, I think he was right on the general point, although wrong about the timing. I don't think anyone serious disagrees with the proposition that tax receipts are at risk over the next two or three years.Tykejohnno said:Well have a go at your hero's bull on the emergency budget ?
0 -
Does anyone here live close to Pentonville?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/07/two-prisoners-have-escaped-from-hmp-pentonville/0 -
This year's autumn statement could be one of the biggest political events of the year.FF43 said:
Tax receipts would almost certainly decrease as a consequence of leaving the EU. The Institute of Fiscal Studies modelled the shortfall in a serious way. George Osborne then picked income tax increases and NHS cutbacks as illustrations of how the shortfall would be addressed. In fact, chancellors of the exchequer try to obscure pain and wouldn't impose their austerity in this obvious way. They would choose some benefit cuts, pension raids, borrowing etc.Tykejohnno said:
Even if we stayed in this might happen over a 3 year period ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, I think he was right on the general point, although wrong about the timing. I don't think anyone serious disagrees with the proposition that tax receipts are at risk over the next two or three years.Tykejohnno said:Well have a go at your hero's bull on the emergency budget ?
0 -
.0 -
I'm sorry, but that it an equally ridiculous claim.Stark_Dawning said:
The WW3 thing was itself a Leave deception, invented by Boris Johnson:Tykejohnno said:And the remain side didn't bullshit like osbornes emergency budget or 3rd world war.
Some remainers are playing a very dangerous game.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
I hold no brief for Johnson (IMO, he's a prize plum pudding), but what he actually said was this: “I think all this talk of world war three and bubonic plague is demented, frankly.”
To claim that an obvious piece of ridicule by hyperbole is a "deception" is a bit rich.
0 -
Well in the case of our EU contribution the rebate is calculated from last year's figures, so we are liable for the full £350m payment, even if we receive £80m back.Charles said:
A rebate isn't a cut in the bill. It's a decision by the creditor not to demand full payment. We are liable for the full £350m pw even if we don't pay it allRichard_Nabavi said:
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU' (and said we could instead spend it on the NHS), nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.david_herdson said:It's not though, is it?
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.0 -
What would be the appropriate punishment for that, Mr Navabi? Something like disqualification from holding public office, perhaps?Richard_Nabavi said:
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU' (and said we could instead spend it on the NHS), nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.david_herdson said:It's not though, is it?
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.
Poor old Mrs May. Loses half her Cabinet.0 -
Except that David Cameron really did come very, very close to warning of World War 3 in his speech of 9 May.Stark_Dawning said:
The WW3 thing was itself a Leave deception, invented by Boris Johnson:Tykejohnno said:And the remain side didn't bullshit like osbornes emergency budget or 3rd world war.
Some remainers are playing a very dangerous game.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician
To my shame, I actually swallowed it myself when a poster on here - a well-know Trump supporter - kept spamming it continuously.
After talking about various wars but mainly WW2, the Prime Minister warned:
Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.
We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.
The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.
Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?
...
That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-the-uks-strength-and-security-in-the-eu-9-may-2016
It is hardly unfair to characterise that as a warning of World War Three. He is certainly warning of war in Europe at the very least, and of invasion by Russia: In the last few years, we have seen tanks rolling into Georgia and Ukraine.0 -
It'll be brilliant if it wins. We can have a field day post elections. 'A million people rely on food banks' 'Trident will cost X billions', 'We pledge not to raise tuition fees', 'We promise to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands' etc. And we leavers can challenge the lie that the EU has brought peace in Europe, mortgages will cost more if we leave etc. etc. We're going to have to import a million Indian lawyers just to keep up.0
-
There are stupid people on both sides that ought to be ignored. I'm a remainer. I am expecting the government, parliament and the courts to do their jobs properly because otherwise it makes a mockery of our constitution. But not because it'll make any difference to the result. In that context, whether the court cases are doing the remain cause any good or not is irrelevant, and it seems to me that people get all agitated about them because they're too worried about image, or are paranoid enough to believe that the plebs have got nothing better to do than riot about a matter that they have won.Mortimer said:
Glad to hear it Pulps.Pulpstar said:
I'd agree with this, as a remainer we need to try and win the arguments. It's not easy, and it'll take a good while as Brexit pans out but I think the various now and planned court cases are doing the "remain" cause no good whatsoever.Mortimer said:Woe betide any establishment stitch up on this.
Remainers need to move beyond challenging it and start to understand just why pointless lawsuits insult the intelligence of the electorate and sound like attempts to subvert democracy.
Foolish cases like this contribute to an unstable 'us clever nobs know best' political culture.
I have a half-written header from Saturday morning when I was very angry with smug Remainers who seemed to think Thursday's result meant we were not leaving. If more stupid ideas like this case surface, it will most definitely be finished!0 -
I'll offer quite generous odds on this ever seeing a courtroom?MaxPB said:
If the statement was specifically "we're sending £350m per week to the EU", then it's not really a lie. That is a statement of fact. However, it didn't take into account that £80m per week was returned as a rebate and a further £50m per week was "returned" via various spending programmes. Not a lie, just dishonest by not providing context. It was up to the remain campaign to provide that context, but as one of them told me, explaining the figure was worse than just accepting it in focus groups.Richard_Nabavi said:
They said 'we are sending £350m a week to the EU', nothing about indirect costs. I don't think any fair-minded person could possibly disagree with the proposition that that was a straightforward lie. I don't throw around accusations of lying, but that one is as clear-cut as they come, and it also has the necessary characteristic of being intentional, since they continued with it after the ONS had pointed out it was garbage.david_herdson said:It's not though, is it?
How do you quantify the cost of membership? Net financial transfers are easy enough but the cost (and benefits) of regulation, social legislation, the opportunity cost (if any) from being within the customs union, the benefit or cost of being in the Single Market, or - for example - the nature of the trade deficits and surplusses are all far more contentious. All the same, they do all add to the sum of the net cost / income, and it's reasonable to include estimates for all within an overall figure. But how to estimate them? That's anyone's guess.
Re the rebate; the money never technically leaves the government's bank account does it?0 -
He is his biggest fan.Essexit said:
I'd like to see her interviewed more often. When she sat on Andrew Marr's sofa and told Nigel Farage that he should be his biggest fan I could scarcely believe my ears.taffys said:''I think the various now and planned court cases are doing the "remain" cause no good whatsoever.''
Cheer up, woman of the people Gina Miller is a good spokesperson.0 -
The video the inmates filmed from inside Bedford prison showed up what a mess the prison system is in. Alot of them were clearly high as kites on drugs.Sandpit said:Does anyone here live close to Pentonville?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/07/two-prisoners-have-escaped-from-hmp-pentonville/0 -
Be careful, demographics are usually quoted in different ways because "Hispanic" is often broken down by race, so you have white Hispanics, black Hispanics etc. So you can get figures with or without that breakdown.MaxPB said:
Vs state demographics helps to see which groups are voting out of proportion. Though. Vs 2012 is useful as well. Both would be nice to have.Charles said:
Vs 2012 more relevant? Adj for demographic trendsMaxPB said:
How does that compare to state demographics?nunu said:daniel a. smith
daniel a. smith – @electionsmith
Florida Race/Ethnic votes cast & share of early vote to date:
B: 834.6k (13.1%)
H: 976.3k (15.3%)
W: 4.2m (65.8%)
All Other: 373k (5.8%)0 -
Does anyone here live in Pentonville?Sandpit said:Does anyone here live close to Pentonville?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/07/two-prisoners-have-escaped-from-hmp-pentonville/0 -
Nice try, but they also said that, under their proposal, you could spend the £350 on your healthcare plan.MaxPB said:Yes and no. If I give you £350 today and you promise to give me £80 back next year, I've still given you £350. I may receive £80 today from last year's rebate, but I'm still giving you £350 today, as in the payment registered with my bank would be £350 paid out to Richard Nabavi.
There's no getting away from this. It was a straightforward and deliberate lie. I agree with Alastair, however, that this isn't a matter for a criminal prosecution, and I don't expect it will go anywhere.0 -
Still not good at original thought I see. The £18bn gross contribution figure comes from the Treasury. It just doesn't take into account any receivables from the EU. Shall we go round the Monty Hall problem again, behind one door Juncker wants £350m...Scott_P said:
Basic maths not your strong point?MaxPB said:One figure is not related to the other.
We don't send £350m a week to the EU. We never did.
It's a straight lie.0 -
However "Subject to EU rules" does not mean "Subject to ALL EU rules" - after all we are presumably about to break the 'free movement' rules.FF43 said:
That's the interesting point because the Government in effect promised Nissan that the UK would remain subject to EU rules. It would be ironic if that promise was made in a discriminatory way that falls foul of the very rules the Government is supposed to be adhering to. I should also point out that any subsidies promised to Nissan would also fall foul of WTO rules if they are discriminatory. It's not difficult to make them non-discriminatory however.weejonnie said:
Surely the benefits would only be applied when we leave the EU - and thus not subject to their laws?Scott_P said:0
