politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember from just a year ago the polling build-up to TMay’s d

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember from just a year ago the polling build-up to TMay’s dramatic decision to call an election?

Almost whatever Mrs May does in the rest of her career she is going to go down as the PM who called an election when she had a majority and ended up without one. With the benefit of hindsight it looks like a massive mistake.

Read the full story here

PeterMannion

1st?

PeterMannion

Unlike... etc.

DavidL

As Mike has pointed out in the past the polling for the Tories was in fact pretty stable throughout (even if there was some underlying churn). They expected a further boost from the collapse of UKIP but didn't get it and I think most expected some sort of recovery by the Lib Dems to hurt Labour instead of a further falling away (of votes, if not seats). Where the polls were massively out was of course Labour. Corbyn's success in ingathering the anti-Tory vote was remarkable.

Nigelb

PeterMannion said:

Unlike... etc.

What are you talking about ?
'etc' has been beating both May and Corbyn in recent best PM polling fairly regularly...

HYUFD

The interesting thing is the 42% the Tories got at the general election was pretty close to the average Tory rating in those March to April 2017 polls.

What changed was the LDs and UKIP collapsed from double to single digits, mainly as those considering them went to Labour instead

GIN1138

And then came that manifesto launch....

Jonathan

What if the Tories current poll leads are equally inflated?

Pulpstar

These polls were actually too low on the Tory share !

CarlottaVance

And if she hadn't called an election she'd have been condemned forever after by the legions of Monday morning quarterbacks for not 'striking while the iron was hot'......I'm sure without a GE TSE would be forever proclaiming how shit May was because she didn't call an election in 2017 and 'built on Dave's majority'.....

Stark_Dawning

Yet we all believed this nonsense. Why? Surely it wasn't because we thought Theresa was that good. Was it because we thought Corbyn was that bad?

GIN1138

If this poison attack is proven to have been carried out by the Russian's is there any way we can make them pay for the cost to investigating and cleaning up the mess?

Jonathan

CarlottaVance said:

And if she hadn't called an election she'd have been condemned forever after by the legions of Monday morning quarterbacks for not 'striking while the iron was hot'......I'm sure without a GE TSE would be forever proclaiming how shit May was because she didn't call an election in 2017 and 'built on Dave's majority'.....

nah. She had promised not to, got greedy and screwed up.

Gardenwalker

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

HYUFD

Jonathan said:

What if the Tories current poll leads are equally inflated?

The Tories kept their 2017 poll share and the LD and UKIP poll share in 2017 already collapsed in Labour's favour at the general election anyway

TOPPING

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

People, though, were immediately irritated by the u-turn. It was running to catch up since that moment.

Cyclefree

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

Gardenwalker

TOPPING said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

People, though, were immediately irritated by the u-turn. It was running to catch up since that moment.

I still don’t know why she did U-turn.
Yes, there was some froth about it, but it was an improvement on the current situation.

She panics in difficult situations, can’t control it so retreats to her safety ground.

Pulpstar

What on earth is going on with all these polls, they have a range of 8 -> 11% for "other" !

The actual "other" was 6% if you take England, Wales and Scotland.

williamglenn

At the time when May would have expected to win a bigger majority, one of the arguments against doing it was that it would have meant the end of Corbyn and thus made life harder for the Conservatives in the medium term.

I still think May went for the election because she realised her strategy of dividing the EU27 had failed and she thought playing "my mandate's bigger than yours" would help her in the negotiations.

CarlottaVance

Stark_Dawning said:

Yet we all believed this nonsense. Why? Surely it wasn't because we thought Theresa was that good. Was it because we thought Corbyn was that bad?

I'm not sure it was nonsense. I think the British people - still pretty evenly divided over BREXIT decided that one party with an overwhelming majority was probably a bad idea - and a good campaign from Corbyn (and a poor one from May) - presented a solution.

The alternative history has the Tories discovering May is a poor campaigner and Corbyn a good one in 2020 among the turbulence of just having left the EU.....which I think could lead to a worse outcome. As it is Brexit will be receding in the rear view mirror by 2022 and the Tories will have a new leader and Labour a tired one.

Oh, and 2017 also significantly spiked the SNP's guns - so it was far from all bad.

DavidL

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

williamglenn

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

Poor old Tim Farron doesn't get the credit he deserves for leaving only one viable anti-Tory vote.

volcanopete

A little boy called Alfie has a medical condition for which the correct titration of medical cannabis is appropriate and dramatically improves his condition.Yet,cannabis for appropriate and specific medical remains illegal,meaning Alfie's mum is breaking the criminal law in the UK Despite the fact that the UK is the largest producer of medical cannabis in the World,it remains illegal in the UK for UK patients.The total incongruity and hypocrisy of current cannabis policy is confirmed when the government minister responsible,who continues to parrot NHS England's line of "there is no therapeutic value",has a husband whose company,British Sugar,has teamed up with GW Pharma,to grow bloody great greenhouses of the plant in West Norfolk to produce the necessary meds for the Alfies of this world from the whole genus cannabis plant which Alfie is not allowed to have.
I support Alfie.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-43318408?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Sean_F

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

The fundamental problem is that being an intelligent sociopath can take you quite far in life.

Anorak

https://www.twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/971365098966183936
[btw, anyone know the etymology of 'melt' in this context]

david_herdson

DavidL said:

As Mike has pointed out in the past the polling for the Tories was in fact pretty stable throughout (even if there was some underlying churn). They expected a further boost from the collapse of UKIP but didn't get it and I think most expected some sort of recovery by the Lib Dems to hurt Labour instead of a further falling away (of votes, if not seats). Where the polls were massively out was of course Labour. Corbyn's success in ingathering the anti-Tory vote was remarkable.

I don't think that's true of the UKIP vote. The Con share peaked a little later from Mike's screenshot, with polls up into the high 40s and even into the 50s. Some of that share undoubtedly came from UKIP. Indeed, there was an almost instant and direct swing of about 3% from UKIP to Con the moment the election was called. Labour's rise started slightly later.

DavidL

What I think is equally interesting is that the Tory vote has remained equally solid since the election with few polls having them short of 40%.

When one considers the abuse that this government has had from a remain dominated media that is remarkable. In this case I am also more inclined to give the credit to Corbyn than May. If Labour had a credible alternative surely the government would be polling significantly lower.

david_herdson

Stark_Dawning said:

Yet we all believed this nonsense. Why? Surely it wasn't because we thought Theresa was that good. Was it because we thought Corbyn was that bad?

Yes, broadly.

And it wasn't nonsense - the polls were an accurate reflection of opinion at the time, as was proven in the local elections.

CarlottaVance

Caroline Flint talks immigration:

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2018/03/07/the-collapse-of-political-trust/

david_herdson

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

I agree on all points.

williamglenn

DavidL said:

What I think is equally interesting is that the Tory vote has remained equally solid since the election with few polls having them short of 40%.

When one considers the abuse that this government has had from a remain dominated media that is remarkable. In this case I am also more inclined to give the credit to Corbyn than May. If Labour had a credible alternative surely the government would be polling significantly lower.

I think it's just Brexit-induced rigor mortis across the political spectrum. People are waiting for Brexit to rot away before re-engaging because it's so boring and senseless.

Cyclefree

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

The fundamental problem is that being an intelligent sociopath can take you quite far in life.

It can but it doesn't need to be that way if we actually tried acting out and rewarding the behaviours we say we want.

DavidL

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

Poor old Tim Farron doesn't get the credit he deserves for leaving only one viable anti-Tory vote.

I agree. If the Lib Dems had got 15% of the vote instead of 7% May would have had a comfortable majority. He was an absolute disaster.

TOPPING

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

What I think is equally interesting is that the Tory vote has remained equally solid since the election with few polls having them short of 40%.

When one considers the abuse that this government has had from a remain dominated media that is remarkable. In this case I am also more inclined to give the credit to Corbyn than May. If Labour had a credible alternative surely the government would be polling significantly lower.

I think it's just Brexit-induced rigor mortis across the political spectrum. People are waiting for Brexit to rot away before re-engaging because it's so boring and senseless.

Do you not read PB?!

david_herdson

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

That's simply not true. Con was polling around 42% before the election was called. That shot up to about 47% more or less straight away but then dwindled back to 43% or so by election day. Certainly, Labour's share changed by more but the Tory one wasn't static either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

The fundamental problem is that being an intelligent sociopath can take you quite far in life.

Gordon Gekko and Patrick Bateman, Dick Fuld, Fred Goodwin and Bernie Madoff all worked in banking or financial services

DavidL

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

That's simply not true. Con was polling around 42% before the election was called. That shot up to about 47% more or less straight away but then dwindled back to 43% or so by election day. Certainly, Labour's share changed by more but the Tory one wasn't static either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

The GB share of the vote for the Tories was just over 44% IIRC. Their share moved in a very narrow band. It was the concentration of the opposition vote that caused the problem.

MarkHopkins

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

Poor old Tim Farron doesn't get the credit he deserves for leaving only one viable anti-Tory vote.

I agree. If the Lib Dems had got 15% of the vote instead of 7% May would have had a comfortable majority. He was an absolute disaster.

Well at least the LDs have got Vince Cable now....

Sean_F

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

That's simply not true. Con was polling around 42% before the election was called. That shot up to about 47% more or less straight away but then dwindled back to 43% or so by election day. Certainly, Labour's share changed by more but the Tory one wasn't static either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

The GB share of the vote for the Tories was just over 44% IIRC. Their share moved in a very narrow band. It was the concentration of the opposition vote that caused the problem.

The eve of poll numbers were very accurate for the Conservatives. Unfortunately, they substantially understated Labour.

TGOHF

Incredible that we have gone from UKIP polling up to 13% to a party that might not have the cash to field any candidates or even exist if an election was held this summer.

DavidL

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

That's simply not true. Con was polling around 42% before the election was called. That shot up to about 47% more or less straight away but then dwindled back to 43% or so by election day. Certainly, Labour's share changed by more but the Tory one wasn't static either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

The GB share of the vote for the Tories was just over 44% IIRC. Their share moved in a very narrow band. It was the concentration of the opposition vote that caused the problem.

The eve of poll numbers were very accurate for the Conservatives. Unfortunately, they substantially understated Labour.

Which makes me wonder about these earlier polls. Perhaps if the public had been given a forced binary choice we might have got a better indication...

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

The fundamental problem is that being an intelligent sociopath can take you quite far in life.

Gordon Gekko and Patrick Bateman, Dick Fuld, Fred Goodwin and Bernie Madoff all worked in banking or financial services

Ummm: I'm fairly sure neither Gordon Gekko nor Patrick Bateman were real people.

And I'm not sure why you'd think Dick Fuld was a psychopath.

(Bernie, I suspect, was just running the longest con in history.)

TheScreamingEagles

Anorak said:

https://www.twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/971365098966183936
[btw, anyone know the etymology of 'melt' in this context]

Melt = Someone really thick and or someone who needs to sack up and grow a pair.

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

The fundamental problem is that being an intelligent sociopath can take you quite far in life.

Gordon Gekko and Patrick Bateman, Dick Fuld, Fred Goodwin and Bernie Madoff all worked in banking or financial services

Ummm: I'm fairly sure neither Gordon Gekko nor Patrick Bateman were real people.

And I'm not sure why you'd think Dick Fuld was a psychopath.

(Bernie, I suspect, was just running the longest con in history.)

There was a reason Wall Street and American Pyscho were set in the investment banking world, the power and money available attracts more than its fair share of sociopaths.

As for Fuld
http://summitlake.com/wp_1commentary/?p=174

TheScreamingEagles

On topic it wasn’t just the headline figures, it was the oldies who were massively breaking for the Tories.

I think I compared Jeremy Corbyn to Anastasia Steele and the electorate to Christian Grey.


http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/21/fifty-shades-of-grey-voters-corbyns-punishing-polling-with-older-voters/

Can’t imagine what Mrs May did to piss off the oldies.

Anorak

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

https://www.twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/971365098966183936
[btw, anyone know the etymology of 'melt' in this context]

Melt = Someone really thick and or someone who needs to sack up and grow a pair.

That's a definition (and I'm not convinced it's the right one), not the etymology.

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

The fundamental problem is that being an intelligent sociopath can take you quite far in life.

Gordon Gekko and Patrick Bateman, Dick Fuld, Fred Goodwin and Bernie Madoff all worked in banking or financial services

Ummm: I'm fairly sure neither Gordon Gekko nor Patrick Bateman were real people.

And I'm not sure why you'd think Dick Fuld was a psychopath.

(Bernie, I suspect, was just running the longest con in history.)

There was a reason Wall Street and American Pyscho were set in the investment banking world, the power and money available attracts more than its fair share of sociopaths.

As for Fuld
http://summitlake.com/wp_1commentary/?p=174

Gordon Gecko wasn’t an investment banker, he was a corporate raider/stock broker.

SandyRentool

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

Poor old Tim Farron doesn't get the credit he deserves for leaving only one viable anti-Tory vote.

I agree. If the Lib Dems had got 15% of the vote instead of 7% May would have had a comfortable majority. He was an absolute disaster.

Surely that would have resulted in the LDs taking seats off the Tories in the south west?

DavidL

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

The fundamental problem is that being an intelligent sociopath can take you quite far in life.

Gordon Gekko and Patrick Bateman, Dick Fuld, Fred Goodwin and Bernie Madoff all worked in banking or financial services

Ummm: I'm fairly sure neither Gordon Gekko nor Patrick Bateman were real people.

And I'm not sure why you'd think Dick Fuld was a psychopath.

(Bernie, I suspect, was just running the longest con in history.)

There was a reason Wall Street and American Pyscho were set in the investment banking world, the power and money available attracts more than its fair share of sociopaths.

As for Fuld
http://summitlake.com/wp_1commentary/?p=174

Loved this: "“...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there.”

As baddies go, an absolute classic (although well behind Heath Ledger's Joker of course).

david_herdson

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

That's simply not true. Con was polling around 42% before the election was called. That shot up to about 47% more or less straight away but then dwindled back to 43% or so by election day. Certainly, Labour's share changed by more but the Tory one wasn't static either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

The GB share of the vote for the Tories was just over 44% IIRC. Their share moved in a very narrow band. It was the concentration of the opposition vote that caused the problem.

To an extent. But it'd be a mistake to think that all that happened during the election were two direct movements from LD and UKIP to Lab.

There was also a movement from Con to Lab, sometimes only involving those parties; sometimes where Con had been an interim stage from UKIP, DNV or something else.

And of course, if Con had retained its peak 47%, they'd have won a comfortable majority, irrespective of how well Corbyn was able to marshal the opposition votes (and had the Tory share held steady - presumably under a better campaign - chances are that Corbyn wouldn't have had the chances he did to build the momentum that enabled him to win over so many ex-LD and ex-UKIP voters).

PeterMannion

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

Have you got a new business?

You never mention it...

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

https://www.twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/971365098966183936
[btw, anyone know the etymology of 'melt' in this context]

Melt = Someone really thick and or someone who needs to sack up and grow a pair.

And "sack up"?

david_herdson

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

That's simply not true. Con was polling around 42% before the election was called. That shot up to about 47% more or less straight away but then dwindled back to 43% or so by election day. Certainly, Labour's share changed by more but the Tory one wasn't static either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

The GB share of the vote for the Tories was just over 44% IIRC. Their share moved in a very narrow band. It was the concentration of the opposition vote that caused the problem.

The eve of poll numbers were very accurate for the Conservatives. Unfortunately, they substantially understated Labour.

Which makes me wonder about these earlier polls. Perhaps if the public had been given a forced binary choice we might have got a better indication...

They were road tested in the local elections. Sure, it's not quite a like-for-like comparison but the number and quality of Con gains and Lab losses tell their own story. Teesside. The West Midlands.

Richard_Nabavi

volcanopete said:

A little boy called Alfie has a medical condition for which the correct titration of medical cannabis is appropriate and dramatically improves his condition.Yet,cannabis for appropriate and specific medical remains illegal,meaning Alfie's mum is breaking the criminal law in the UK Despite the fact that the UK is the largest producer of medical cannabis in the World,it remains illegal in the UK for UK patients.The total incongruity and hypocrisy of current cannabis policy is confirmed when the government minister responsible,who continues to parrot NHS England's line of "there is no therapeutic value",has a husband whose company,British Sugar,has teamed up with GW Pharma,to grow bloody great greenhouses of the plant in West Norfolk to produce the necessary meds for the Alfies of this world from the whole genus cannabis plant which Alfie is not allowed to have.
I support Alfie.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-43318408?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

What on earth are you going on about? GW Pharmaceuticals is a very respectable company*. Its principal product Sativex is licensed in the UK, although of course such decisions are 100% independent of ministers, so I've no idea why you would think you could make some brain-dead political point (together with an unwarranted personal smear) about it even if it weren't licensed in the UK. Sativex is indeed derived from cannabis, but there are literally hundreds of active molecules in cannabis; that doesn't mean that because Sativex is safe and effective for some conditions, that cannabis is. We have an independent drug-licensing system which decides these things.

* Declaration of interest: I know its founder Geoffrey Guy, and have been skiing with him. He's great fun and a generous host.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Well, indeed, but who could've anticipated a campaign that was so bloody awful?

Mr. Mannion, self-promotion can be awkward (I often wonder if I'm plugging my books too much, or not enough). Miss Cyclefree offers more than enough interesting comment and insight here to justify the mention of her business.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

https://www.twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/971365098966183936
[btw, anyone know the etymology of 'melt' in this context]

Melt = Someone really thick and or someone who needs to sack up and grow a pair.

And "sack up"?

A reference to the ball sack that contains ones testes.

So one should act like a man.

TheScreamingEagles

This is turning into the day I had to explain to Cyclefree what ‘Change at Baker Street’ was a euphemism for.

TOPPING

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

The fundamental problem is that being an intelligent sociopath can take you quite far in life.

Gordon Gekko and Patrick Bateman, Dick Fuld, Fred Goodwin and Bernie Madoff all worked in banking or financial services

Ummm: I'm fairly sure neither Gordon Gekko nor Patrick Bateman were real people.

And I'm not sure why you'd think Dick Fuld was a psychopath.

(Bernie, I suspect, was just running the longest con in history.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAnIOCIBFR4

HYUFD

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

The fundamental problem is that being an intelligent sociopath can take you quite far in life.

Gordon Gekko and Patrick Bateman, Dick Fuld, Fred Goodwin and Bernie Madoff all worked in banking or financial services

Ummm: I'm fairly sure neither Gordon Gekko nor Patrick Bateman were real people.

And I'm not sure why you'd think Dick Fuld was a psychopath.

(Bernie, I suspect, was just running the longest con in history.)

There was a reason Wall Street and American Pyscho were set in the investment banking world, the power and money available attracts more than its fair share of sociopaths.

As for Fuld
http://summitlake.com/wp_1commentary/?p=174

Loved this: "“...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there.”

As baddies go, an absolute classic (although well behind Heath Ledger's Joker of course).

Also the narcissist's narcissist

Richard_Nabavi

On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.

DavidL

SandyRentool said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

Poor old Tim Farron doesn't get the credit he deserves for leaving only one viable anti-Tory vote.

I agree. If the Lib Dems had got 15% of the vote instead of 7% May would have had a comfortable majority. He was an absolute disaster.

Surely that would have resulted in the LDs taking seats off the Tories in the south west?

Yes but they would have won many more seats off Labour with a split opposition.

Pulpstar

volcanopete said:

A little boy called Alfie has a medical condition for which the correct titration of medical cannabis is appropriate and dramatically improves his condition.Yet,cannabis for appropriate and specific medical remains illegal,meaning Alfie's mum is breaking the criminal law in the UK Despite the fact that the UK is the largest producer of medical cannabis in the World,it remains illegal in the UK for UK patients.The total incongruity and hypocrisy of current cannabis policy is confirmed when the government minister responsible,who continues to parrot NHS England's line of "there is no therapeutic value",has a husband whose company,British Sugar,has teamed up with GW Pharma,to grow bloody great greenhouses of the plant in West Norfolk to produce the necessary meds for the Alfies of this world from the whole genus cannabis plant which Alfie is not allowed to have.
I support Alfie.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-43318408?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

British Sugar surely couldn't give a stuff whether cannabis is legal in the UK or not ?
And GW Pharma wouldn't mind seeing as they're already in related markets.

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

volcanopete said:

A little boy called Alfie has a medical condition for which the correct titration of medical cannabis is appropriate and dramatically improves his condition.Yet,cannabis for appropriate and specific medical remains illegal,meaning Alfie's mum is breaking the criminal law in the UK Despite the fact that the UK is the largest producer of medical cannabis in the World,it remains illegal in the UK for UK patients.The total incongruity and hypocrisy of current cannabis policy is confirmed when the government minister responsible,who continues to parrot NHS England's line of "there is no therapeutic value",has a husband whose company,British Sugar,has teamed up with GW Pharma,to grow bloody great greenhouses of the plant in West Norfolk to produce the necessary meds for the Alfies of this world from the whole genus cannabis plant which Alfie is not allowed to have.
I support Alfie.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-43318408?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

What on earth are you going on about? GW Pharmaceuticals is a very respectable company*. Its principal product Sativex is licensed in the UK, although of course such decisions are 100% independent of ministers, so I've no idea why you would think you could make some brain-dead political point (together with an unwarranted personal smear) about it even if it weren't licensed in the UK. Sativex is indeed derived from cannabis, but there are literally hundreds of active molecules in cannabis; that doesn't mean that because Sativex is safe and effective for some conditions, that cannabis is. We have an independent drug-licensing system which decides these things.

* Declaration of interest: I know its founder Geoffrey Guy, and have been skiing with him. He's great fun and a generous host.

It is not GW Pharmaceuticals fault that there is such resistance to the medicinal use of cannabis in this country. I find it weird when you think how much we use morphine. The evidence that cannabis is useful for many chronic conditions is becoming overwhelming.

SandyRentool

DavidL said:

SandyRentool said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

Poor old Tim Farron doesn't get the credit he deserves for leaving only one viable anti-Tory vote.

I agree. If the Lib Dems had got 15% of the vote instead of 7% May would have had a comfortable majority. He was an absolute disaster.

Surely that would have resulted in the LDs taking seats off the Tories in the south west?

Yes but they would have won many more seats off Labour with a split opposition.

Yes on a uniform swing back to the LibDems, but if the LibDem vote was concentrated in their winnable areas - including tactical voting by Labourites, then it would not have benefitted the Conservatives.

The LibDem collapse in 2015 benefitted the Tories, so I would anticipate that a reverse would have similar reverse impact.

RoyalBlue

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

TOPPING

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.

david_herdson

SandyRentool said:

DavidL said:

SandyRentool said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

May was right to call an election.
Strategically, she did exactly as I predicted and indeed suggested on this forum.

Tack hard, to ensure you have the backing of the nut-loops, then call an election to raise your majority so that you can then tack soft.

The problem was not the election.
The problem was her bullshit campaign.

Having cobbled together a majority, she’s more reliant on the freak shakes than ever,but she’s still essentially carrying out the strategy above.

Her focus is above all on securing an agreement on Brexit, and beyond that she will likely stand down. She will not concede a “referendum on the deal” unless parliamentary arithmetic forces her to.

Her "bullshit" campaign did not do anything to diminish the Tory vote which remained consistent throughout. It did, rather weirdly, help concentrate the opposition but I think Corbyn deserves more credit than May blame for that.

Poor old Tim Farron doesn't get the credit he deserves for leaving only one viable anti-Tory vote.

I agree. If the Lib Dems had got 15% of the vote instead of 7% May would have had a comfortable majority. He was an absolute disaster.

Surely that would have resulted in the LDs taking seats off the Tories in the south west?

Yes but they would have won many more seats off Labour with a split opposition.

Yes on a uniform swing back to the LibDems, but if the LibDem vote was concentrated in their winnable areas - including tactical voting by Labourites, then it would not have benefitted the Conservatives.

The LibDem collapse in 2015 benefitted the Tories, so I would anticipate that a reverse would have similar reverse impact.

Although were the Lib Dems to recover to 15%, that would only be clawing back about half the votes they'd lost since 2010, so it would be a very muted 'reverse effect'.

Cyclefree

PeterMannion said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT in response to the delightful @Topping, who said this (which I will treasure);-

"Cyclefree is close to being a national treasure; she is certainly a PB one. But she is also possibly talking her own book. Isn't her consultancy predicated on bankers being ruthless, immoral charlatans?

Banks are by no means guilt free, but it is but one industry amongst many and of course has its bad practices. It also provides an easy and cheap target for everyone from the left (eg. Jezza) to the right (eg. HYUFD)."

We all talk our own book here to some extent. But my new business is predicated on my belief that financial services matter, that there are many good people in the industry who deserve not to be let down by the charlatans and crooks and that it matters to get the latter out of the industry and show the former that they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. I want to make the finance sector better not attack it or destroy it.

And when I've finished with bankers - or indeed at the same time - I am very happy to do the same for other sectors. Much of the same behaviour (greed, stupidity etc) can be found there.

For all my cynicism (which is based on 35 years of experience) I believe that people can be better than they are and we should do our damnedest to train, show and inspire them how to be the best they can.

Have you got a new business?

You never mention it...

I have mentioned it on 3 occasions: last autumn when I asked for advice about website content, on February 12th when it was launched and on March 3rd, when I was asking for advice about Things To Do in Hong Kong. It was Mr @Topping who mentioned it first today.

Compare to all the other comments and thread headers I have written in the last 5 months.....

HYUFD

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.

Given UKIP and the Greens each got barely more than 1% and the Liberals their lowest voteshare since 1959 in 2017, simple maths tells you he can't

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

It is not GW Pharmaceuticals fault that there is such resistance to the medicinal use of cannabis in this country. I find it weird when you think how much we use morphine. The evidence that cannabis is useful for many chronic conditions is becoming overwhelming.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that there are compounds in cannabis which are beneficial in some conditions, which is what the GW Pharma business is built on (isolating the ones which are useful). The problem is that cannabis is so complicated that you are effectively taking a whole bunch of other highly active and not very well-understood drugs along with the ones which are beneficial.

Torby_Fennel

williamglenn said:

Poor old Tim Farron doesn't get the credit he deserves for leaving only one viable anti-Tory vote.

That's a bit harsh... as a Lib Dem I give him plenty of credit for it. Everything we held or won was despite his best efforts to throw away the whole lot.

RoyalBlue

TOPPING said:

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.

They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.

It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.

MaxPB

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic it wasn’t just the headline figures, it was the oldies who were massively breaking for the Tories.

I think I compared Jeremy Corbyn to Anastasia Steele and the electorate to Christian Grey.


http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/02/21/fifty-shades-of-grey-voters-corbyns-punishing-polling-with-older-voters/

Can’t imagine what Mrs May did to piss off the oldies.

I also remember warning people on PB along with @SeanT that her policies were a disaster and getting told by others that it was no big deal. Those two announcements killed out election chances.

Pulpstar

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.

And non-GE2015 voters. Corbyn must have picked up over a million of those I think.

A million left party switchers, a million red kippers returning home and a million non voters broadly makes the numbers add through.

Richard_Nabavi

HYUFD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.

Given UKIP and the Greens each got barely more than 1% and the Liberals their lowest voteshare since 1959 in 2017, simple maths tells you he can't

Yes but simple maths can't tell you whether he can hang on to his GE2017 coalition of voters, nor whether he can peel off a few more from the Conservative vote (or at least reassure some GE2017 Conservative voters enough for them to stay at home). Given those uncertainties, and the state of the Conservative Party at the moment, and the uncertainties of Brexit, and the likelihood that the Conservatives and maybe the LibDems will have a different leader by the next GE, I think the range of plausible outcomes is even wider than normal.

CarlottaVance

TOPPING said:

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.

Yes - they are fighting for the European Union while we’re after a Common Market.....‘twas ever thus and we’re reaching the end of that road....

Danny565

I think the Tories' monster poll lead was pretty much entirely based on an artificial image of Mrs May. In the first few days of canvassing last year, it was incredible the number of people saying things like "she's so self-confident", "she's fearless", "she's feisty", "she looks you in the eye and tells you exactly what she thinks"..... people genuinely thought she was Thatcher's personality, without Thatcher's more unpopular policies.

But that image of her was never going to be sustained over a whole election campaign, because even the limited number of interviews she did exposed that she wasn't such an "Iron Lady" after all (as opposed to the short clips she limited herself to in the first year of her premiership, where she could just do her memorised scripts for a couple of minutes).

TOPPING

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.

Yes - they are fighting for the European Union while we’re after a Common Market.....‘twas ever thus and we’re reaching the end of that road....

A cursory glance at any EU documents would have made this crystal clear to anyone who bothered to do so. Now it seems we are after some kind of associate membership. We shall see what transpires.

HYUFD

Richard_Nabavi said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: although the narrative is, quite justifiably, that Theresa May badly screwed up the campaign, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the Tory vote actually held up, and it was Jeremy Corbyn's quite astonishing feat of hoovering up votes from the LibDems, Greens and to an extent UKIP which was unexpected. To be honest I still don't really understand it, and I'm not sure anyone else does either. For that reason, I don't think it's easy to predict whether he can repeat the trick next time.

Given UKIP and the Greens each got barely more than 1% and the Liberals their lowest voteshare since 1959 in 2017, simple maths tells you he can't

Yes but simple maths can't tell you whether he can hang on to his GE2017 coalition of voters, nor whether he can peel off a few more from the Conservative vote (or at least reassure some GE2017 Conservative voters enough for them to stay at home). Given those uncertainties, and the state of the Conservative Party at the moment, and the uncertainties of Brexit, and the likelihood that the Conservatives and maybe the LibDems will have a different leader by the next GE, I think the range of plausible outcomes is even wider than normal.

At the moment we are almost exactly where we were last June as no Tory voters will touch Corbyn and no Corbyn voters will touch the Tories and the other parties have all been squeezed to the bone

Scott_P

Anorak said:

[btw, anyone know the etymology of 'melt' in this context]

It is common coinage among those who refer to JC as "the absolute boy" and refers to the antihesis of that

Danny565

Corbyn didn't just pick up anti-Tory voters: around 10% of 2015 Tory voters switched directly to him. Though admittedly, almost as many 2015 Labour voters switched to the Tories, so the net change wasn't massive.

Richard_Nabavi

Danny565 said:

I think the Tories' monster poll lead was pretty much entirely based on an artificial image of Mrs May. In the first few days of canvassing last year, it was incredible the number of people saying things like "she's so self-confident", "she's fearless", "she's feisty", "she looks you in the eye and tells you exactly what she thinks"..... people genuinely thought she was Thatcher's personality, without Thatcher's more unpopular policies.

But that image of her was never going to be sustained over a whole election campaign, because even the limited number of interviews she did exposed that she wasn't such an "Iron Lady" after all (as opposed to the short clips she limited herself to in the first year of her premiership, where she could just do her memorised scripts for a couple of minutes).

That's true, but the same point can be made about people's views of Jeremy Corbyn. Amazingly, quite a lot of people think he's honest and sticks to his principles. Some of them even thought that Labour's economic plans made sense. Is that perception likely to survive a campaign where the Conservatives are vaguely competent (assuming they are, of course)?

david_herdson

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.

Yes - they are fighting for the European Union while we’re after a Common Market.....‘twas ever thus and we’re reaching the end of that road....

A cursory glance at any EU documents would have made this crystal clear to anyone who bothered to do so. Now it seems we are after some kind of associate membership. We shall see what transpires.

That's not entirely true before about the mid-1980s. Yes, there was always the Ever Closer Union clause, and EMU had been an official objective since the late 1960s but the reality was that twenty-five years after the EEC was founded, the Single Market was still not close to being in sight, never mind more grandiose plans; there hadn't been a single treaty delivering on 'ever closer union', bar minor technical ones such as that which merged the institutions of the ECSC, EEC and Euratom; and neither the Commission nor the Parliament were powerful actors. Looking at the history of the Community, rather than the theory, one wouldn't have foreseen the extraordinary developments of the last 15 years of the 20th century.

After all, the UN Charter reserves all sorts of sweeping powers for it but in reality, it's remained little more than the sum of its members' collective will, ever since it was founded.

williamglenn

RoyalBlue said:

TOPPING said:

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.

They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/oct/23/european-communities-summit-conference-1

Heath in 1972 after the Paris summit:

The main decision of the summit conference was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and monetary union; and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.

Macmillan and Heath didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes on Europe. Blair's greatest crime was turning his pro-Europeanism as a stick to beat the Tories with.

Anorak

Scott_P said:

Anorak said:

[btw, anyone know the etymology of 'melt' in this context]

It is common coinage among those who refer to JC as "the absolute boy" and refers to the antihesis of that

Again, a definition - to be fair a much better one than TSE's - but not the etymology.

Why was the word 'melt' selected from tens of thousands of other options to describe Labour members who are insufficiently enthusiastic about JC? Are true believers 'ice cold', or are there views just 'frozen' since the 1917 revolution?

Pulpstar

Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.

TheWhiteRabbit

Pulpstar said:

Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.

It ain't either/or.

A deal of FS means Euro-clearing in London and access to UK capital markets for the EU.

It also means fewer jobs in London and more in Frankfurt. But we'll live.

TOPPING

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.

Yes - they are fighting for the European Union while we’re after a Common Market.....‘twas ever thus and we’re reaching the end of that road....

A cursory glance at any EU documents would have made this crystal clear to anyone who bothered to do so. Now it seems we are after some kind of associate membership. We shall see what transpires.

That's not entirely true before about the mid-1980s. Yes, there was always the Ever Closer Union clause, and EMU had been an official objective since the late 1960s but the reality was that twenty-five years after the EEC was founded, the Single Market was still not close to being in sight, never mind more grandiose plans; there hadn't been a single treaty delivering on 'ever closer union', bar minor technical ones such as that which merged the institutions of the ECSC, EEC and Euratom; and neither the Commission nor the Parliament were powerful actors. Looking at the history of the Community, rather than the theory, one wouldn't have foreseen the extraordinary developments of the last 15 years of the 20th century.

After all, the UN Charter reserves all sorts of sweeping powers for it but in reality, it's remained little more than the sum of its members' collective will, ever since it was founded.

That's as maybe but it has been pretty clear as you say for the past 15 years - certainly before/at the time of the referendum!!

Alanbrooke

Pulpstar said:

Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.

because financial services make up 11% of our economy and SE Tories cant get their heads round the other 89%

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.

I think there's a good chance at getting both.

williamglenn

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

We basically have three choices:

- Single market plus customs union: Politically inconceivable
- Canada plus with special status for Northern Ireland: "No British Prime Minister" could agree
- Reverse Brexit

On the Sherlock Holmes principle, we will reverse Brexit.

calum

Pulpstar said:

Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.

We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models

TheWhiteRabbit

calum said:

Pulpstar said:

Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.

We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models

We will get something like adequacy, i.e. essential equivalence. Will work fine where the single market has been completed, though not the case for all financial markets.

FF43

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

I don't believe the EU do think they will force a Brexit collapse. They are coming to the problem from a different angle from the Brits. People in the UK, especially Leavers but not only Leavers, expect the status quo to hold, unless it changes. You make adjustments as you make changes. The EU approach is much more empirical. What does each party want and what common ground can be agreed? That common ground becomes the agreement. The more red lines you add the narrower the common ground becomes. The parties need to abandon their red lines if they want more common ground,. The EU approach is formal and constraining. But it is very unfudged. We will be forced to confront our red lines and decide if they are worth their extremely high cost.

The draft is very short and can be read here

Edit This is a convincing backgrounder on EU thinking. Note this article is about the Commission, which is the bureaucracy, while the draft guidelines come from the Council representing EU27

https://twitter.com/TomKibasi/status/971023411546918913

AlastairMeeks

On the thread topic of modern English usage, I have been invited by email to attend an event where someone is "to keynote" the conference.

I blame Brexit.

AndyJS

Her biggest mistake was not making the election campaign as short as possible.

calum

TheWhiteRabbit said:

calum said:

Pulpstar said:

Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.

We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models

We will get something like adequacy, i.e. essential equivalence. Will work fine where the single market has been completed, though not the case for all financial markets.

EU's access to our capital markets should be pretty straight forward post Brexit, particularly when we're talking about large EU corporates and professional investors.

I think there's too much focus on investment banking and not enough on needing to protect - asset management, securities trading, research services, venture capital and insurance.

MikeSmithson

RoyalBlue said:

TOPPING said:

RoyalBlue said:

It’s quite clear that the EU is not able or willing to consider a nuanced solution for the UK’s trading relationship post-Brexit:

http://app.ft.com/content/4d43e628-21f5-11e8-9a70-08f715791301

They clearly think that if they push hard enough, Brexit will collapse. We will fold, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece before us. It would undoubtedly be a great prize for them if we did.

The great question is, will we?

I'm sure it's much more likely that they value the political ideal above any sordid financial considerations and believe that any economic hit would be a price worth paying in that regard.

They always have done. Macmillan, Heath, Blair and Cameron tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and Major was too thick to realise how it worked. Thatcher realised what it all meant in the twilight of her premiership.

It is time for us to do the same, as good Europeans.

Your description of Major is a travesty and shows you up for what you are.

MaxPB

calum said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

calum said:

Pulpstar said:

Why's Hammond banging on about a deal must including Financial Services. Tusk's offer of zero tariffs on goods looks fine to me.

We need passports or similar to maintain our cross border services models

We will get something like adequacy, i.e. essential equivalence. Will work fine where the single market has been completed, though not the case for all financial markets.

EU's access to our capital markets should be pretty straight forward post Brexit, particularly when we're talking about large EU corporates and professional investors.

I think there's too much focus on investment banking and not enough on needing to protect - asset management, securities trading, research services, venture capital and insurance.

I think all of the latter are there because there's so much money in London, at least everything except insurance.

Danny565

AndyJS said:

Her biggest mistake was not making the election campaign as short as possible.

Oh right, giving them less time to make preparations, and so making the manifesto even more of a pig's ear than it was.