Mr. Urquhart, wouldn't be the first time. Back when Miliband was leader, he went on a MacMillan press release put together by a former Labour Party fellow, magically asking questions on the release before it was, er, released.
Excellent presentation by Sean Trende at RCP about why polling margins of errors only capture the error due to sampling, not the error arising from assumptions made about the make up of the electorate, and how the law of large numbers does not apply to the latter:
That looks like a very plausible account of EU thinking, and of how things might pan out.
I remain mystified that the financial markets are so nonchalant about the risk.
People in the UK who talk about politics versus economics don't realise the EU is above all a legal construct. Which is a major reason why it's difficult to leave. The EU owns the European and, increasingly the international, legal and regulatory systems. Whether we like it or not, they decide how things are done. We can either be a part of that system or be told what to do by it.
It's also the EU greatest weakness. Using the rule book to decide things removes the emotion and fractiousness in a continent with multiple peoples, cultures and languages. It allows things to be done. But it also alienates the rulers from the governed, who don't feel they have a say in how things are done.
The EU certainly doesn't own the international legal and regulatory systems. It is not even the biggest influence upon them.
@election_data: Difficult to escape the suspicion that some scores are being settled in public. Feels like every man or woman for himself in cabinet. Choose your weapon
It's also the EU greatest weakness. Using the rule book to decide things removes the emotion and fractiousness in a continent with multiple peoples, cultures and languages. It allows things to be done. But it also alienates the rulers from the governed, who don't feel they have a say in how things are done.
Doesn't the same argument apply to any form of written constitution? It's not specifically a weakness of the EU.
No. Because the EU is the only supranational legal system of its type. The US and China are powerful states but they don't implement international systems and systems of law for other countries to adhere to.
And edit because I didn't get your point. The EU uses legalism as a subsitute for political decision-making. To some extent they have to. It's not a superstate and no-one wants it to be.
In the case of the Article 50 negotiations it seems that the British government made the mistake of believing that the EU was using legalism as a subsitute for political decision making, when in fact upholding the system was the political decision.
The 'system' is only alienating if you don't accept its legitimacy, and if you don't accept its legitimacy, that's not the system's fault.
I don't think I agree on your first point. On your second point, it's subjective. People will be alienated if they want to be.
I would however point out that EU legalism is very much in the UK's interest if we want other EU countries to agree something. We don't need to herd the cats, and we can't. Equally it's not a negotiation of equals. If we want something we have to do it according to the EU system.
Hope we see this gain the kind of attention the ‘sex’ scandal has. How awful.
I hope it is not a real life Armando Ianucci show - as entertaining as his shows are, if there was even a 10% basis in fact in how horribly people in politics, elected or not, treat each other and underlings, it would be an absolute disgrace and I could not put up with it myself.
I predicted a few months ago that Pritti Patel was likely to be next out. Today she's been shown to be another victim of the Foreign office back stabbers. This time I have to say deserved. 12 meetings with Netanyahu and associates without FO approval in the company of an Israeli lobbyist and claiming Boris knew about it which she has now admitted is a lie.
If May doesn't sack her it'll be extraordinary.
May won't sack her as there are a lot of big Jewish donors to the party, Conservative Friends of Israel is influential and she knows the only way the Tories will hold Barnet next year in the London council elections is through the Jewish vote.
That is almost anti semitic. Are you suggesting Jewish money is used to swing government policy?
No I am saying the Tories got their highest share of the Jewish vote in June and a clear majority of it because of Corbyn which was pivotal in keeping Finchley for example as a Tory seat. They will not want to undermine their support with the Jewish community.
Do you have evidence that there's a 'Jewish vote' as in Jews vote as a block?
The results in Barnet at the last election as compared to the rest of London would suggest so.
On tax stuff, I confess I've always struggled to get entirely outraged sometimes. If the actions are not illegal then, ok, disappointment can be expressed, but why should people apologise for following the law? Politicians, however, being the ones who can set the rules, can be held to a higher standard of condemnation as they will have chosen not to prevent things that people think should be prevented.
I predicted a few months ago that Pritti Patel was likely to be next out. Today she's been shown to be another victim of the Foreign office back stabbers. This time I have to say deserved. 12 meetings with Netanyahu and associates without FO approval in the company of an Israeli lobbyist and claiming Boris knew about it which she has now admitted is a lie.
If May doesn't sack her it'll be extraordinary.
May won't sack her as there are a lot of big Jewish donors to the party, Conservative Friends of Israel is influential and she knows the only way the Tories will hold Barnet next year in the London council elections is through the Jewish vote.
That is almost anti semitic. Are you suggesting Jewish money is used to swing government policy?
No I am saying the Tories got their highest share of the Jewish vote in June and a clear majority of it because of Corbyn which was pivotal in keeping Finchley for example as a Tory seat. They will not want to undermine their support with the Jewish community.
Do you have evidence that there's a 'Jewish vote' as in Jews vote as a block?
The results in Barnet at the last election as compared to the rest of London would suggest so.
Yes the Tories held all 3 Barnet seats, Finchley and Golders Green and Hendon (the 2 constituencies with the highest Jewish population in the UK) and Chipping Barnet.
Excellent presentation by Sean Trende at RCP about why polling margins of errors only capture the error due to sampling, not the error arising from assumptions made about the make up of the electorate, and how the law of large numbers does not apply to the latter:
You could tell the poll gap was closing in VA when the Democrats released that awful ad of the pickup truck flying a huge confederate flag, with an Ed Gillespie bumper sticker on the back and a "Don't tread on me" plate on the front, chasing terrified colored kids down the street. That was a desperate gamble.
I predicted a few months ago that Pritti Patel was likely to be next out. Today she's been shown to be another victim of the Foreign office back stabbers. This time I have to say deserved. 12 meetings with Netanyahu and associates without FO approval in the company of an Israeli lobbyist and claiming Boris knew about it which she has now admitted is a lie.
If May doesn't sack her it'll be extraordinary.
May won't sack her as there are a lot of big Jewish donors to the party, Conservative Friends of Israel is influential and she knows the only way the Tories will hold Barnet next year in the London council elections is through the Jewish vote.
That is almost anti semitic. Are you suggesting Jewish money is used to swing government policy?
No I am saying the Tories got their highest share of the Jewish vote in June and a clear majority of it because of Corbyn which was pivotal in keeping Finchley for example as a Tory seat. They will not want to undermine their support with the Jewish community.
Do you have evidence that there's a 'Jewish vote' as in Jews vote as a block?
The results in Barnet at the last election as compared to the rest of London would suggest so.
Yes the Tories held all 3 Barnet seats, Finchley and Golders Green and Hendon (the 2 constituencies with the highest Jewish population in the UK) and Chipping Barnet.
There was a big swing to Labour in Chipping Barnet, and the Jewish population is much smaller there compared to Hendon and Finchley.
That looks like a very plausible account of EU thinking, and of how things might pan out.
I remain mystified that the financial markets are so nonchalant about the risk.
Isn't it explained by the rational market theory.
They think no PM will be that stupid and trash the economy with Hard/WTO Brexit.
But the thing is, it's not the PM who is being stupid. It's the situation which makes it very hard not to trash the economy: EU inflexibility and legalism, their barmy demand for megabucks, the unrealistic nature of the Article 50 timetable, the need to get 27 countries plus assorted grandstanding parliaments to agree, the fact that PM threw away Dave's majority so the UK can't trade concessions and be able to deliver on them, the chaos within government, and the unrealistic expectations on both sides.
If it was just a matter of the PM doing something, she'd do it. But she's hemmed in on all sides.
The timetable was the only thing in the PM's control. She should have held back Article 50 until everything was in place to leave. There is absolutely no grounds for blaming the EU.
I predicted a few months ago that Pritti Patel was likely to be next out. Today she's been shown to be another victim of the Foreign office back stabbers. This time I have to say deserved. 12 meetings with Netanyahu and associates without FO approval in the company of an Israeli lobbyist and claiming Boris knew about it which she has now admitted is a lie.
If May doesn't sack her it'll be extraordinary.
May won't sack her as there are a lot of big Jewish donors to the party, Conservative Friends of Israel is influential and she knows the only way the Tories will hold Barnet next year in the London council elections is through the Jewish vote.
That is almost anti semitic. Are you suggesting Jewish money is used to swing government policy?
No I am saying the Tories got their highest share of the Jewish vote in June and a clear majority of it because of Corbyn which was pivotal in keeping Finchley for example as a Tory seat. They will not want to undermine their support with the Jewish community.
Do you have evidence that there's a 'Jewish vote' as in Jews vote as a block?
The results in Barnet at the last election as compared to the rest of London would suggest so.
Yes the Tories held all 3 Barnet seats, Finchley and Golders Green and Hendon (the 2 constituencies with the highest Jewish population in the UK) and Chipping Barnet.
I recall Finchley was predicted to be going Red after the exit poll was announced.
Boris is Boris, isn’t he hilarious, really doesn’t cut it when his crass stupidity puts British citizens in direct peril. How can the PM possibly allow him to continue in a job he is clearly not fit to do?
I don't think she is in a position to appoint him as a Butlins redcoat, which I think is the only job he could be trusted with.
On tax stuff, I confess I've always struggled to get entirely outraged sometimes. If the actions are not illegal then, ok, disappointment can be expressed, but why should people apologise for following the law? Politicians, however, being the ones who can set the rules, can be held to a higher standard of condemnation as they will have chosen not to prevent things that people think should be prevented.
Here in the US there are a couple of definitions which clear things up.
Tax avoidance - using legal options to minimise your tax payable. This makes sense and everyone should do it. There's no law saying you must pay as much tax as possible.
Tax evasion - the use of illegal means of minimising your tax payable. If you get caught doing this you will end up with a big fine and probable jail time.
It's also the EU greatest weakness. Using the rule book to decide things removes the emotion and fractiousness in a continent with multiple peoples, cultures and languages. It allows things to be done. But it also alienates the rulers from the governed, who don't feel they have a say in how things are done.
Doesn't the same argument apply to any form of written constitution? It's not specifically a weakness of the EU.
No. Because the EU is the only supranational legal system of its type. The US and China are powerful states but they don't implement international systems and systems of law for other countries to adhere to.
And edit because I didn't get your point. The EU uses legalism as a subsitute for political decision-making. To some extent they have to. It's not a superstate and no-one wants it to be.
In the case of the Article 50 negotiations it seems that the British government made the mistake of believing that the EU was using legalism as a subsitute for political decision making, when in fact upholding the system was the political decision.
The 'system' is only alienating if you don't accept its legitimacy, and if you don't accept its legitimacy, that's not the system's fault.
I don't think I agree on your first point. On your second point, it's subjective. People will be alienated if they want to be.
To explain my first point, the likes of Johnson and Gove expected that the other member states would respond to Brexit by thinking 'right, the game's up - we need to tear down the EU and negotiate something different in its place', and still held on to this view even as the EU27 set out a Greek negotiating trap for them.
It is like somebody at the BBC or the Guardian gave Jezza a heads-up for last weeks PMQ's....but wouldn't give the same to the HMRC.
Again Lewis Hamilton and tax efficiency are about as commonly used a multiple world champ.
The BBC said he saved 3.5 million in VAT by his flying his jet once into the Isle of Man.No wonder everyone who pays 20% on all their purchases in this country , such as a car, kitchen or extension thinks our government is taking the piss out of the just about managing.They would be correct shafted big style by a corrupt system.
The Tory party are a complete shambles. Get.Rid.Of.Fast.
So are labour - Head Office rent from Offshore trust and McDonnells pension managed offshore
But it the Tory party that has sold this country down the river, my friend.
Yes, the Labour party could be in better shape, but let's not take our focus off the Conservative Party.
What the hell were Labour doing for their 13 years in office? Many of these avoidance arrangements were set up between 1997 and 2010. When Labour were "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich – as long as they pay their taxes." The very taxes set by his then Labour Government. Oh, but in 2012, Mandelson stops becoming intensely relaxed. When he is no longer part of the process to set the taxes. Fucking hypocrite.
So leave off with the outrage. Labour did sod all to close the avoidance loopholes. It could easily have moved them from "avoidance" to "evasion". For 13 years it sat on its hands.
Thirteen years. How many nurses would that have paid for?
The Tory party are a complete shambles. Get.Rid.Of.Fast.
So are labour - Head Office rent from Offshore trust and McDonnells pension managed offshore
But it the Tory party that has sold this country down the river, my friend.
Yes, the Labour party could be in better shape, but let's not take our focus off the Conservative Party.
What the hell were Labour doing for their 13 years in office? Many of these avoidance arrangements were set up between 1997 and 2010. When Labour were "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich – as long as they pay their taxes." The very taxes set by his then Labour Government. Oh, but in 2012, Mandelson stops becoming intensely relaxed. When he is no longer part of the process to set the taxes. Fucking hypocrite.
So leave off with the outrage. Labour did sod all to close the avoidance loopholes. It could easily have moved them from "avoidance" to "evasion". For 13 years it sat on its hands.
Thirteen years. How many nurses would that have paid for?
The Queens investment took place in 2005 and Dame Margaret Hodge said that the Treasury has oversight over the Duchy Investment and didn't realise it was her labour government that was in power when she said the treasury and government should have done something about it.
Politics is truly broken. A people's revolution anyone?
Nah. Apparently we want politicians to be 'more like us'. What's 'more like us' than that? After all, we all probably know a few people who do those sorts of things.
On the new lexicon and 'whistleblowing', I've always been cynical, since policies on it exist because it is acknowledged that if you do it, people will want to punish you. Of course, no policy can prevent the desire to punish, therefore even if policies exist to prevent obvious punishment, that desire will still exist and a way will be found.
The Tory party are a complete shambles. Get.Rid.Of.Fast.
So are labour - Head Office rent from Offshore trust and McDonnells pension managed offshore
But it the Tory party that has sold this country down the river, my friend.
Yes, the Labour party could be in better shape, but let's not take our focus off the Conservative Party.
What the hell were Labour doing for their 13 years in office? Many of these avoidance arrangements were set up between 1997 and 2010. When Labour were "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich – as long as they pay their taxes." The very taxes set by his then Labour Government. Oh, but in 2012, Mandelson stops becoming intensely relaxed. When he is no longer part of the process to set the taxes. Fucking hypocrite.
So leave off with the outrage. Labour did sod all to close the avoidance loopholes. It could easily have moved them from "avoidance" to "evasion". For 13 years it sat on its hands.
Thirteen years. How many nurses would that have paid for?
And which Labour Party are we talking about, the New Labour type which has virtually been castrated or the True Labour version of the past few years gaining a membership of 650 k plus. The Labour Party has changed, probably not in a way that you approve of. But then again, would you want Major to return to the leadership of the Tories? On second thoughts, he would actually be an improvement.
Boris is Boris, isn’t he hilarious, really doesn’t cut it when his crass stupidity puts British citizens in direct peril. How can the PM possibly allow him to continue in a job he is clearly not fit to do?
I don't think she is in a position to appoint him as a Butlins redcoat, which I think is the only job he could be trusted with.
Maybe something big like Nissan walking would be the moment the country wakes up from this collective madness?
But that would mean that the EU has basically blackmailed us into submission. Which would imply the end of the UK as an independent country. I cannot even imagine all the consequences of that, but I don't think it will end well for any side.
Part of the problem is that the UK government made certain assurances to Nissan (and others) to avoid adverse events like this.
This, in turn, ties the hands of the UK negotiating team.
If we go back on our assurances in Nissan, then it increases the risk of something bad happening. And I don't think you can think of this as blackmail: this would merely be Nissan protecting their shareholders against a negative outcome - something they are morally bound to do.
If we honour our assurances to Nissan, then we find ourselves in a very weak negotiating position.
There is no good outcome to this puzzle. We already have a dangerously unbalanced economy, with a current account deficit, a government deficit, and the lowest savings rates in history. The biggest threat to Brexit has always been a nasty recession between now and exit day; how do we minimise the chance of that recession in the next two years?
Maybe something big like Nissan walking would be the moment the country wakes up from this collective madness?
But that would mean that the EU has basically blackmailed us into submission. Which would imply the end of the UK as an independent country. I cannot even imagine all the consequences of that, but I don't think it will end well for any side.
Part of the problem is that the UK government made certain assurances to Nissan (and others) to avoid adverse events like this.
This, in turn, ties the hands of the UK negotiating team.
If we go back on our assurances in Nissan, then it increases the risk of something bad happening. And I don't think you can think of this as blackmail: this would merely be Nissan protecting their shareholders against a negative outcome - something they are morally bound to do.
If we honour our assurances to Nissan, then we find ourselves in a very weak negotiating position.
There is no good outcome to this puzzle. We already have a dangerously unbalanced economy, with a current account deficit, a government deficit, and the lowest savings rates in history. The biggest threat to Brexit has always been a nasty recession between now and exit day; how do we minimise the chance of that recession in the next two years?
Cancel Brexit, obvs. It is the overwhelming risk to the economy, and is already a drag on growth.
Comments
Mr. P, Boris is a shit, and May is feeble.
*sighs*
FAKE NEWS !!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/06/va_governor_race_is_within_the_margie_margin_135456.html
They have, so far, not endangered UK interests abroad, unlike HMG...
I would however point out that EU legalism is very much in the UK's interest if we want other EU countries to agree something. We don't need to herd the cats, and we can't. Equally it's not a negotiation of equals. If we want something we have to do it according to the EU system.
Yes, the Labour party could be in better shape, but let's not take our focus off the Conservative Party.
I was referring to members of cabinet freelancing on the World stage
It's not enough to get angry and turn over the table on the assumption a replacement would be better, unless it can be explained why.
The story today is tax evasion and in that the BBC, Guardian, and the Labour party are all deeply involved themselves. Their hypocisy is breathtaking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVckRJvuBQY
http://tinyurl.com/yb3sv5m3
Tax avoidance - using legal options to minimise your tax payable. This makes sense and everyone should do it. There's no law saying you must pay as much tax as possible.
Tax evasion - the use of illegal means of minimising your tax payable. If you get caught doing this you will end up with a big fine and probable jail time.
Trump is a turd. Period. I think we can all agree on that.
So leave off with the outrage. Labour did sod all to close the avoidance loopholes. It could easily have moved them from "avoidance" to "evasion". For 13 years it sat on its hands.
Thirteen years. How many nurses would that have paid for?
You couldn't make this stuff up
NEW THREAD
This, in turn, ties the hands of the UK negotiating team.
If we go back on our assurances in Nissan, then it increases the risk of something bad happening. And I don't think you can think of this as blackmail: this would merely be Nissan protecting their shareholders against a negative outcome - something they are morally bound to do.
If we honour our assurances to Nissan, then we find ourselves in a very weak negotiating position.
There is no good outcome to this puzzle. We already have a dangerously unbalanced economy, with a current account deficit, a government deficit, and the lowest savings rates in history. The biggest threat to Brexit has always been a nasty recession between now and exit day; how do we minimise the chance of that recession in the next two years?
It is the overwhelming risk to the economy, and is already a drag on growth.