Jess Philips on her feet....asking if PM supports "gagging" of complainants - but doesn't name anyone - May won't comment on specific case before the courts but says government will propose changes to stop NDAs being used for 'gagging'.
Guardian: PMQs - Snap verdict: You might call that a score draw between May and Corbyn – but more of a scrappy 1-1, rather than a more thrilling 4-4. Not a classic, even for devotees.
Guardian: PMQs - Snap verdict: You might call that a score draw between May and Corbyn – but more of a scrappy 1-1, rather than a more thrilling 4-4. Not a classic, even for devotees.
i) Despite the "Disaster at Salzburg" there has been little shift in perception over whether anyone else could do better - if anything a slight drift away from the notion - (diff vs early Sept)
May getting good deal: 3 (-) May bad deal, other leader better: 25 (-2) May bad deal other leader no different: 45 (+3)
ii) Somewhat surprisingly, there is not the level of party political polarisation you might expect to see:
May good/May bad, other leader better/May bad, other leader no different:
OA: 3 / 25 / 45 Con: 5 / 23 / 50 Lab: 1 / 30 / 46
iii) Similarly, while more Leave voters than Remain voters think someone else could do better a plurality still think no one else could:
May good/May bad, other leader better/May bad, other leader no different:
The one thing that's clear from that is that no one is going to be happy with any deal that's got. Brexit is going to start with zero legitimacy for the actual deal struck.
Guardian: PMQs - Snap verdict: You might call that a score draw between May and Corbyn – but more of a scrappy 1-1, rather than a more thrilling 4-4. Not a classic, even for devotees.
It was a rerun of last week - Corbyn has been more effective in the past.
Both May and Cameron have put the party before the country over many years. Which is why May's recent attempts to appeal for support from opposition MPs on the basis of the national interest are hollow and unconvincing.
Clegg and Miliband refusing a Referendum was putting the national interest ahead of protecting the interests of the EU how, exactly?
I guess a better question on 538 is "in how many races would you have made money betting against the model", or in other words was the betting market assigning more or less accurate odds than 538?
Personally, I made money on backing Brexit and Trump, both at 6/1 on the day, but lost on the General Election ex-Scotland. I don't know what 538 said for the last one, but I would have lost money
I think 538 didn't do a quantitive model for Brexit or the 2017 UK election (though they did publish some articles people here would have been advised to pay more attention to, on the level of uncertainty in UK polls).
I'm not sure what odds the betting market had on election night- only source I could find is http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/donald-trump-president-gamble/ saying it was 5/1. 538 gave him a 28.6% chance. So basically your bet was backing the model over the market.
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
I guess a better question on 538 is "in how many races would you have made money betting against the model", or in other words was the betting market assigning more or less accurate odds than 538?
Personally, I made money on backing Brexit and Trump, both at 6/1 on the day, but lost on the General Election ex-Scotland. I don't know what 538 said for the last one, but I would have lost money
His swing state performance was pretty mixed as well - he got several right (AZ, NV, OH, IA) but he was off in NC and FL, and completely missed the Rust Belt Trump performance (he had Clinton at 84% of winning WI)....
That's not a failure in itself. It would only be a failure if outcomes he rated at a 84% probability went the other way significantly more often (or of course significantly less often) than 16% of the time. In other words, an 84% probability should give a surprise result about one in six times.
That is true but I think in WI, MI and PA, his average probability for Clinton across all 3 was around 80-81%. So he got wrong all 3 states where he had such a high degree of success.
The problem I suspect is that the data doesn't take into account other factors and / or common sense was not applied. I didn't come up with this but the point has been made that If you think IA and OH are going Republican, as he did, logically you should think about the risks to places like WI given the similar demographics. Given he was weighting such places at 80%+ Clinton probability win, he didn't
That raises the interesting question of the correlation between the different states. My take is that Nate Silver handles this very well, which Also: his forecasts (in his 'Classic' model) do take into account factors other than polling. He shows this very clearly in the new Senate forecasts for individual states, with a graphic showing the effects of the various factors.
Wasn't it the USC/LA Times that got it right about Trump winning in 2016?
Are any bookies doing band markets on House or Senate seats? Those could be interesting.
US Rustbelt seats struck me as highly correlated. I didnt see value in Trump in Ohio, but did find it in Michigan and Wisconsin. Win one and likely to win several.
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
She was asking for information from victims on Twitter last night.
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
i) Despite the "Disaster at Salzburg" there has been little shift in perception over whether anyone else could do better - if anything a slight drift away from the notion - (diff vs early Sept)
May getting good deal: 3 (-) May bad deal, other leader better: 25 (-2) May bad deal other leader no different: 45 (+3)
ii) Somewhat surprisingly, there is not the level of party political polarisation you might expect to see:
May good/May bad, other leader better/May bad, other leader no different:
OA: 3 / 25 / 45 Con: 5 / 23 / 50 Lab: 1 / 30 / 46
iii) Similarly, while more Leave voters than Remain voters think someone else could do better a plurality still think no one else could:
May good/May bad, other leader better/May bad, other leader no different:
The one thing that's clear from that is that no one is going to be happy with any deal that's got. Brexit is going to start with zero legitimacy for the actual deal struck.
In that case things can only get better
Just when you think nothing can get worse, it does.
Could somebody please post-some betting tips for a change?
I'll start the ball rolling. Republicans to hold the House at 7/4 on Ladbrokes.
RCP showing the Dems with only a 5 seat lead (205-200) in the House and polling of the swing seats looking more favourable to the Republicans in recent days. Plus should be some positive economic data just before the election.
I'll take 538 over RCP
Even after 2016 ?
Thanks for all the tips, will take a look at the May and Castro ones, although I think Trump will win in 2020...
538 predicted that Clinton had a 71% chance of winning. Punters and commentators thought it was much higher than that.
There were some humdingers in the failure: for example, union leaders had picked up that Wisconsin might be a problem, and had arranged to bus in activists to help get the vote out. The Clinton campaign heard about this and countermanded it, saying that Wisconsin was safe.
She lost Wisconsin by 0.77%.
Even worse the Clinton campaign knew they were behind but played 12-dimensional chess and chose not to campaign there.
Could somebody please post-some betting tips for a change?
I'll start the ball rolling. Republicans to hold the House at 7/4 on Ladbrokes.
RCP showing the Dems with only a 5 seat lead (205-200) in the House and polling of the swing seats looking more favourable to the Republicans in recent days. Plus should be some positive economic data just before the election.
I'll take 538 over RCP
Even after 2016 ?
Thanks for all the tips, will take a look at the May and Castro ones, although I think Trump will win in 2020...
538 predicted that Clinton had a 71% chance of winning. Punters and commentators thought it was much higher than that.
There were some humdingers in the failure: for example, union leaders had picked up that Wisconsin might be a problem, and had arranged to bus in activists to help get the vote out. The Clinton campaign heard about this and countermanded it, saying that Wisconsin was safe.
She lost Wisconsin by 0.77%.
Even worse the Clinton campaign knew they were behind but played 12-dimensional chess and chose not to campaign there.
To be honest I think the Dems' problems started the moment they decided to pick a charisma vacuum with massive amounts of baggage as their candidate
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
I guess a better question on 538 is "in how many races would you have made money betting against the model", or in other words was the betting market assigning more or less accurate odds than 538?
Personally, I made money on backing Brexit and Trump, both at 6/1 on the day, but lost on the General Election ex-Scotland. I don't know what 538 said for the last one, but I would have lost money
His swing state performance was pretty mixed as well - he got several right (AZ, NV, OH, IA) but he was off in NC and FL, and completely missed the Rust Belt Trump performance (he had Clinton at 84% of winning WI)....
That's not a failure in itself. It would only be a failure if outcomes he rated at a 84% probability went the other way significantly more often (or of course significantly less often) than 16% of the time. In other words, an 84% probability should give a surprise result about one in six times.
That is true but I think in WI, MI and PA, his average probability for Clinton across all 3 was around 80-81%. So he got wrong all 3 states where he had such a high degree of success.
The problem I suspect is that the data doesn't take into account other factors and / or common sense was not applied. I didn't come up with this but the point has been made that If you think IA and OH are going Republican, as he did, logically you should think about the risks to places like WI given the similar demographics. Given he was weighting such places at 80%+ Clinton probability win, he didn't
That raises the interesting question of the correlation between the different states. My take is that Nate Silver handles this very well, which is why he had orecasts for individual states, with a graphic showing the effects of the various factors.
Wasn't it the USC/LA Times that got it right about Trump winning in 2016?
Rasmussen was closest on the popular vote, Trafalgar Group had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and Florida
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
2) Most huge constitutional changes, to get legitimacy, need 66% to pass. This was not the case for the EU ref, but considering the 52/48 margin we should consider why it is the convention. Massive constitutional change takes time, political capital and political will. With a 2/3rds mandate, politicians and institutions know they can make the changes without immediate political fallout and with some sort of claim to popular credibility. With a 52/48 margin, such a weak mandate comes with lack of political will; if the population are fickle you will not reap benefits by listening to 52%.
3) Since the vote roughly a third of Remainers have been in the "get on with it" camp. They "respect the result". But, as time has gone by, nothing has been done to get these people on board with the deal. Talk about No Deal, about Remoaners and traitors alienates this part of the populace.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
Could somebody please post-some betting tips for a change?
I'll start the ball rolling. Republicans to hold the House at 7/4 on Ladbrokes.
RCP showing the Dems with only a 5 seat lead (205-200) in the House and polling of the swing seats looking more favourable to the Republicans in recent days. Plus should be some positive economic data just before the election.
I'll take 538 over RCP
Even after 2016 ?
Thanks for all the tips, will take a look at the May and Castro ones, although I think Trump will win in 2020...
538 predicted that Clinton had a 71% chance of winning. Punters and commentators thought it was much higher than that.
There were some humdingers in the failure: for example, union leaders had picked up that Wisconsin might be a problem, and had arranged to bus in activists to help get the vote out. The Clinton campaign heard about this and countermanded it, saying that Wisconsin was safe.
She lost Wisconsin by 0.77%.
Even worse the Clinton campaign knew they were behind but played 12-dimensional chess and chose not to campaign there.
To be honest I think the Dems' problems started the moment they decided to pick a charisma vacuum with massive amounts of baggage as their candidate
But charisma-free, baggage-heavy Hillary did win the popular vote. No, the problem was Hillary's campaign team had learned nothing from losing the primaries to Obama and made exactly the same mistakes all over again.
Before we get too superior about American politicians not understanding politics and not learning from their mistakes, Cameron lost Brexit by following the same fear-based strategy that came within a whisker of losing Scotland. And we could go on.
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6. Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
Not now we know what NoDeal would look like. Up until now, Brexit in its various guises never had any disadvantages. Now it is nothing but disadvantages. As Mrs May knows only too well.
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
No. Leave led most polls a fortnight before the poll and not one of the final polls gave Remain a lead of 10% or more over Leave as in this poll.
No Deal means economic catastrophe and quite possibly the break up of the UK with Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
Could somebody please post-some betting tips for a change?
I'll start the ball rolling. Republicans to hold the House at 7/4 on Ladbrokes.
RCP showing the Dems with only a 5 seat lead (205-200) in the House and polling of the swing seats looking more favourable to the Republicans in recent days. Plus should be some positive economic data just before the election.
I'll take 538 over RCP
Even after 2016 ?
Thanks for all the tips, will take a look at the May and Castro ones, although I think Trump will win in 2020...
538 wasn't nearly as bad as perceived in 2016. Well they were when Trump was in the primaries, badly underestimating him. But at the general they treated him like any other candidate and gave him | 25% chance iirc. Given the narrowness of his win and the additional west coast tilt to the Dems (Which doesn't matter for ECVs) they were the best modellers, except a certain former poster here.
Plato may have posted more Trump propaganda than an entire Russian troll farm but she still predicted a Clinton victory.
You do have to wonder sometimes how 538.com does its sums. Turning, for example, to its predictions for this season's English Championship. it currently has Stoke City finishing 7th, despite the fact that after 14 games, i.e. with >30% of the season having been completed, they lie in 17th place with just 4 wins (a ratio of 28.6%) coupled with a negative goal difference to their name. Despite this, 538.com gives the Potters an 18% of gaining promotion this season, equating to betting odds of 9/2. If indeed this represents an accurate assessment, perhaps we should all be rushing off down to the bookies, where any number of them are pleased to offer odds of 8/1 against the same eventuality and still expect to make a handsome profit.
I'd not seen that but did make a packet at the World Cup by ignoring 538's habitual overrating of the Americas.
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
Probably every black cab driver in London....
I suspect she - or any one of a hundred other prominent feminists with whom she's in contact - may well have been asked for a comment before the DTel was gagged.
In any case, I should imagine it's common knowledge in London political and media (and therefore cabbie!) circles.
Once PMQs is over the SNP MP Stuart C. McDonald makes a point of order, asking the Speaker, John Bercow, about the news – first reported in the Sun – that the anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, dined in parliament yesterday following a hearing at the Old Bailey over alleged contempt of court.
McDonald asks if Bercow can intervene to prevent Robinson, who McDonald calls “a man who is a guilty as he is of stirring up racial hatred”, being allowed back in parliament.
Bercow says he agrees with McDonald’s assessment of Robinson, calling the founder of the English Defence League street group “a loathsome, obnoxious, repellent individual”. But, Bercow adds, it is “outside of my remit” to dictate what happens in the Lords – Robinson was a guest of the Ukip peer Lord Pearson.
Bercow advises the SNP MP to instead write to the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, and indicates he would be happy for McDonald to mention Bercow’s view.
I guess a better question on 538 is "in how many races would you have made money betting against the model", or in other words was the betting market assigning more or less accurate odds than 538?
Personally, I made money on backing Brexit and Trump, both at 6/1 on the day, but lost on the General Election ex-Scotland. I don't know what 538 said for the last one, but I would have lost money
His swing state performance was pretty mixed as well - he got several right (AZ, NV, OH, IA) but he was off in NC and FL, and completely missed the Rust Belt Trump performance (he had Clinton at 84% of winning WI)....
That's not a failure in itself. It would only be a failure if outcomes he rated at a 84% probability went the other way significantly more often (or of course significantly less often) than 16% of the time. In other words, an 84% probability should give a surprise result about one in six times.
That is true but I think in WI, MI and PA, his average probability for Clinton across all 3 was around 80-81%. So he got wrong all 3 states where he had such a high degree of success.
The problem I suspect is that the data doesn't take into account other factors and / or common sense was not applied. I didn't come up with this but the point has been made that If you think IA and OH are going Republican, as he did, logically you should think about the risks to places like WI given the similar demographics. Given he was weighting such places at 80%+ Clinton probability win, he didn't
That raises the interesting question of the correlation between the different states. My take is that Nate Silver handles this very well, which Also: his forecasts (in his 'Classic' model) do take into account factors other than polling. He shows this very clearly in the new Senate forecasts for individual states, with a graphic showing the effects of the various factors.
Wasn't it the USC/LA Times that got it right about Trump winning in 2016?
Are any bookies doing band markets on House or Senate seats? Those could be interesting.
US Rustbelt seats struck me as highly correlated. I didnt see value in Trump in Ohio, but did find it in Michigan and Wisconsin. Win one and likely to win several.
I have seen Ladbrokes doing Senate seat numbers. Given the way things are going (a poll has the Republicans up in IN as well as ND and they seem confident on MI)), I am tempted by the 5/1 on 53.
Jess Philips on her feet....asking if PM supports "gagging" of complainants - but doesn't name anyone - May won't comment on specific case before the courts but says government will propose changes to stop NDAs being used for 'gagging'.
Didn't Jess Philips boast of stabbing Corbyn in the chest, not his back. Can't seem to remember Yevette Cooper saying anything to condemn her for some reason....
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
Probably every black cab driver in London....
I suspect she - or any one of a hundred other prominent feminists with whom she's in contact - may well have been asked for a comment before the DTel was gagged.
In any case, I should imagine it's common knowledge in London political and media (and therefore cabbie!) circles.
If it is who I think it is, then it is astonishing it has not been made public before....
There may be if he and others don't support May's hoped-for midrange Brexit.
That suggests he may support staying in the Customs Union over No Deal to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period even if he will not support Chequers as the basis of the future trading relationship and that he would back a backstop if agreed for Northern Ireland
Once PMQs is over the SNP MP Stuart C. McDonald makes a point of order, asking the Speaker, John Bercow, about the news – first reported in the Sun – that the anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, dined in parliament yesterday following a hearing at the Old Bailey over alleged contempt of court.
McDonald asks if Bercow can intervene to prevent Robinson, who McDonald calls “a man who is a guilty as he is of stirring up racial hatred”, being allowed back in parliament.
Bercow says he agrees with McDonald’s assessment of Robinson, calling the founder of the English Defence League street group “a loathsome, obnoxious, repellent individual”. But, Bercow adds, it is “outside of my remit” to dictate what happens in the Lords – Robinson was a guest of the Ukip peer Lord Pearson.
Bercow advises the SNP MP to instead write to the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, and indicates he would be happy for McDonald to mention Bercow’s view.
Labour strangely silent on the issue of inviting undesirables into Parliament.....
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
Since Mike had a recent lead article on Corbyn's particularly low rating, it's worth noting that it recovered by 4% in this one, presumably because the anti-semitism row has faded. It's still as net negative as May's, though I suspect there are more Corbyn enthusiasts than May enthusiasts.
I guess a better question on 538 is "in how many races would you have made money betting against the model", or in other words was the betting market assigning more or less accurate odds than 538?
Personally, I made money on backing Brexit and Trump, both at 6/1 on the day, but lost on the General Election ex-Scotland. I don't know what 538 said for the last one, but I would have lost money
His swing state performance was pretty mixed as well - he got several right (AZ, NV, OH, IA) but he was off in NC and FL, and completely missed the Rust Belt Trump performance (he had Clinton at 84% of winning WI)....
That's not a failure in itself. It would only be a failure if outcomes he rated at a 84% probability went the other way significantly more often (or of course significantly less often) than 16% of the time. In other words, an 84% probability should give a surprise result about one in six times.
That is true but I think in WI, MI and PA, his average probability for Clinton across all 3 was around 80-81%. So he got wrong all 3 states where he had such a high degree of success.
The problem I suspect is that the data doesn't take into account other factors and / or common sense was not applied. I didn't come up with this but the point has been made that If you think IA and OH are going Republican, as he did, logically you should think about the risks to places like WI given the similar demographics. Given he was weighting such places at 80%+ Clinton probability win, he didn't
That raises the interesting question of the correlation between the different states. My take is that Nate Silver handles this very well, which Also: his forecasts (in his 'Classic' model) do take into account factors other than polling. He shows this very clearly in the new Senate forecasts for individual states, with a graphic showing the effects of the various factors.
Wasn't it the USC/LA Times that got it right about Trump winning in 2016?
Are any bookies doing band markets on House or Senate seats? Those could be interesting.
US Rustbelt seats struck me as highly correlated. I didnt see value in Trump in Ohio, but did find it in Michigan and Wisconsin. Win one and likely to win several.
I have seen Ladbrokes doing Senate seat numbers. Given the way things are going (a poll has the Republicans up in IN as well as ND and they seem confident on MI)), I am tempted by the 5/1 on 53.
The GOP are miles behind in Michigan, even Romney won IN and ND
Jess Philips on her feet....asking if PM supports "gagging" of complainants - but doesn't name anyone - May won't comment on specific case before the courts but says government will propose changes to stop NDAs being used for 'gagging'.
Didn't Jess Philips boast of stabbing Corbyn in the chest, not his back. Can't seem to remember Yevette Cooper saying anything to condemn her for some reason....
I'd give her the benefit of the doubt on that one - she took a wellknown metaphor and ran with it rather than just make up a random bloodcurdling threat.
That's unfair on the voters. They decided that they didn't want the hard Brexit offered by May. They also decided that there wasn't a better alternative offered to them.
Chaos has resulted because May decided to ignore as much as possible the election result, instead of rethinking her approach.
What hard Brexit? She has been absolutely clear from the start that she wanted to negotiate a deal which respected the result but protected the economy as much as possible. By declining to give her the mandate she asked for, voters have made this near-impossible, as she can't trade concessions in any direction with the EU. The result is that we might even crash out with no deal.
Not true.
Had May won a landslide Tory majority of over 100 with lots of new ERG linked Tory MPs the Commons may now have had a majority of ultra hard, no deal Brexit.
As it is the fact we have a hung parliament and the Tories lost their majority means the key swing votes are 40 to 50 Tory MPs who back a soft Brexit and are sympathetic to the single market and customs union and prefer EUref2 to No Deal
This is absolutely the case. Had May won a good majority be clear, we would have had the hardest of hard Brexits.
The fantasy that she needed a majority to face down the ERG-o-loons was just that - fantasy.
I guess a better question on 538 is "in how many races would you have made money betting against the model", or in other words was the betting market assigning more or less accurate odds than 538?
Personally, I made money on backing Brexit and Trump, both at 6/1 on the day, but lost on the General Election ex-Scotland. I don't know what 538 said for the last one, but I would have lost money
His swing state performance was pretty mixed as well - he got several right (AZ, NV, OH, IA) but he was off in NC and FL, and completely missed the Rust Belt Trump performance (he had Clinton at 84% of winning WI)....
That's not a failure in itself. It would only be a failure if outcomes he rated at a 84% probability went the other way significantly more often (or of course significantly less often) than 16% of the time. In other words, an 84% probability should give a surprise result about one in six times.
That is true but I think in WI, MI and PA, his average probability for Clinton across all 3 was around 80-81%. So he got wrong all 3 states where he had such a high degree of success.
The problem I suspect is that the data doesn't take into account other factors and / or common sense was not applied. I didn't come up with this but the point has been made that If you think IA and OH are going Republican, as he did, logically you should think about the risks to places like WI given the similar demographics. Given he was weighting such places at 80%+ Clinton probability win, he didn't
That raises the interesting question of the correlation between the different states. My take is that Nate Silver handles this very well, which Also: his forecasts (in his 'Classic' model) do take into account factors other than polling. He shows this very clearly in the new Senate forecasts for individual states, with a graphic showing the effects of the various factors.
Wasn't it the USC/LA Times that got it right about Trump winning in 2016?
Are any bookies doing band markets on House or Senate seats? Those could be interesting.
US Rustbelt seats struck me as highly correlated. I didnt see value in Trump in Ohio, but did find it in Michigan and Wisconsin. Win one and likely to win several.
You might also look up at Dems < 228.5 at 10/11. Given the individual seat polling and some of the articles in the NYT, even if the Dems do win the House, it is looking more likely it will be by a small amount, not a landslide.
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
That poll is from June 2018 - not exactly upto date
That is only a few months ago and this summer, not a single poll has had either a net positive rating for No Deal or No Deal preferred to Remain unless you have one to show us?
I have seen Ladbrokes doing Senate seat numbers. Given the way things are going (a poll has the Republicans up in IN as well as ND and they seem confident on MI)), I am tempted by the 5/1 on 53.
The GOP are miles behind in Michigan, even Romney won IN and ND
I guess a better question on 538 is "in how many races would you have made money betting against the model", or in other words was the betting market assigning more or less accurate odds than 538?
Personally, I made money on backing Brexit and Trump, both at 6/1 on the day, but lost on the General Election ex-Scotland. I don't know what 538 said for the last one, but I would have lost money
His swing state performance was pretty mixed as well - he got several right (AZ, NV, OH, IA) but he was off in NC and FL, and completely missed the Rust Belt Trump performance (he had Clinton at 84% of winning WI)....
That's not a failure in itself. It would only be a failure if outcomes he rated at a 84% probability went the other way significantly more often (or of course significantly less often) than 16% of the time. In other words, an 84% probability should give a surprise result about one in six times.
That is true but I think in WI, MI and PA, his average probability for Clinton across all 3 was around 80-81%. So he got wrong all 3 states where he had such a high degree of success.
The problem I suspect is that the data doesn't take into account other 't
That raises the interesting question of the correlation between the different states. My take is that Nate Silver handles this very well, which Also: his forecasts (in his 'Classic' model) do take into account factors other than polling. He shows this very clearly in the new Senate forecasts for individual states, with a graphic showing the effects of the various factors.
Wasn't it the USC/LA Times that got it right about Trump winning in 2016?
Are any bookies doing band markets on House or Senate seats? Those could be interesting.
US Rustbelt seats struck me as highly correlated. I didnt see value in Trump in Ohio, but did find it in Michigan and Wisconsin. Win one and likely to win several.
You might also look up at Dems < 228.5 at 10/11. Given the individual seat polling and some of the articles in the NYT, even if the Dems do win the House, it is looking more likely it will be by a small amount, not a landslide.
The Democrats are on course to match the 31 seats they gained in 2006 last time they took the House
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
No. Leave led most polls a fortnight before the poll and not one of the final polls gave Remain a lead of 10% or more over Leave as in this poll.
No Deal means economic catastrophe and quite possibly the break up of the UK with Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
Very much a politician's response - i.e. answering a different question. My point was that with a month to go, before the campaigning started in earnest, there were polls showing remain ahead by 18 points.
This changed during and at the end of the campaign. Your views are extremely well known on the effects of No Deal - and you may well be right - but not everyone will think the same way and there is the possibility that after months of negative coverage the proponents of No Deal might be able, within a campaign, to put forward a positive view of No Deal that resonates with the public. It would be foolish to dismiss such a possibility.
That's unfair on the voters. They decided that they didn't want the hard Brexit offered by May. They also decided that there wasn't a better alternative offered to them.
Chaos has resulted because May decided to ignore as much as possible the election result, instead of rethinking her approach.
What hard Brexit? She has been absolutely clear from the start that she wanted to negotiate a deal which respected the result but protected the economy as much as possible. By declining to give her the mandate she asked for, voters have made this near-impossible, as she can't trade concessions in any direction with the EU. The result is that we might even crash out with no deal.
Not true.
Had May won a landslide Tory majority of over 100 with lots of new ERG linked Tory MPs the Commons may now have had a majority of ultra hard, no deal Brexit.
As it is the fact we have a hung parliament and the Tories lost their majority means the key swing votes are 40 to 50 Tory MPs who back a soft Brexit and are sympathetic to the single market and customs union and prefer EUref2 to No Deal
This is absolutely the case. Had May won a good majority be clear, we would have had the hardest of hard Brexits.
The fantasy that she needed a majority to face down the ERG-o-loons was just that - fantasy.
Exactly, Mogg would have had 100 to 158 ERG diehard MPs at his command rather than barely more than 50
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
Probably every black cab driver in London....
Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
No. Leave led most polls a fortnight before the poll and not one of the final polls gave Remain a lead of 10% or more over Leave as in this poll.
No Deal means economic catastrophe and quite possibly the break up of the UK with Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
Very much a politician's response - i.e. answering a different question. My point was that with a month to go, before the campaigning started in earnest, there were polls showing remain ahead by 18 points.
This changed during and at the end of the campaign. Your views are extremely well known on the effects of No Deal - and you may well be right - but not everyone will think the same way and there is the possibility that after months of negative coverage the proponents of No Deal might be able, within a campaign, to put forward a positive view of No Deal that resonates with the public. It would be foolish to dismiss such a possibility.
Well nothing can be dismissed but if you think voters will vote for almost 10% lost GDP, mass unemployment and the potential breakup of the UK from No Deal that is up to you
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
That poll is from June 2018 - not exactly upto date
That is only a few months ago and this summer, not a single poll has had either a net positive rating for No Deal or No Deal preferred to Remain unless you have one to show us?
I leave polls to yourself but I do not take them at the literal value you do
That's unfair on the voters. They decided that they didn't want the hard Brexit offered by May. They also decided that there wasn't a better alternative offered to them.
Chaos has resulted because May decided to ignore as much as possible the election result, instead of rethinking her approach.
What hard Brexit? She has been absolutely clear from the start that she wanted to negotiate a deal which respected the result but protected the economy as much as possible. By declining to give her the mandate she asked for, voters have made this near-impossible, as she can't trade concessions in any direction with the EU. The result is that we might even crash out with no deal.
Not true.
Had May won a landslide Tory majority of over 100 with lots of new ERG linked Tory MPs the Commons may now have had a majority of ultra hard, no deal Brexit.
As it is the fact we have a hung parliament and the Tories lost their majority means the key swing votes are 40 to 50 Tory MPs who back a soft Brexit and are sympathetic to the single market and customs union and prefer EUref2 to No Deal
This is absolutely the case. Had May won a good majority be clear, we would have had the hardest of hard Brexits.
The fantasy that she needed a majority to face down the ERG-o-loons was just that - fantasy.
I'm quite certain that is wrong. If Theresa May had won a good majority, she'd have had way more personal and political authority, as well as numbers on her side, and she'd therefore have been much more able to face down the loons (and indeed the DUP) in order to protect the economy. Negotiating with her back to multiple walls is the worst possible scenario, and unfortunately the one we've got.
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
Probably every black cab driver in London....
Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.
It may be like 'senior backbencher' - they are all prominent!
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
That poll is from June 2018 - not exactly upto date
That is only a few months ago and this summer, not a single poll has had either a net positive rating for No Deal or No Deal preferred to Remain unless you have one to show us?
I expect that Remain would win a Remain/No Deal referendum but not by much.
That's unfair on the voters. They decided that they didn't want the hard Brexit offered by May. They also decided that there wasn't a better alternative offered to them.
Chaos has resulted because May decided to ignore as much as possible the election result, instead of rethinking her approach.
What hard Brexit? She has been absolutely clear from the start that she wanted to negotiate a deal which respected the result but protected the economy as much as possible. By declining to give her the mandate she asked for, voters have made this near-impossible, as she can't trade concessions in any direction with the EU. The result is that we might even crash out with no deal.
Not true.
Had May won a landslide Tory majority of over 100 with lots of new ERG linked Tory MPs the Commons may now have had a majority of ultra hard, no deal Brexit.
As it is the fact we have a hung parliament and the Tories lost their majority means the key swing votes are 40 to 50 Tory MPs who back a soft Brexit and are sympathetic to the single market and customs union and prefer EUref2 to No Deal
This is absolutely the case. Had May won a good majority be clear, we would have had the hardest of hard Brexits.
The fantasy that she needed a majority to face down the ERG-o-loons was just that - fantasy.
I'm quite certain that is wrong. If Theresa May had won a good majority, she'd have had way more personal and political authority, as well as numbers on her side, and she'd therefore have been much more able to face down the loons (and indeed the DUP) in order to protect the economy. Negotiating with her back to multiple walls is the worst possible scenario, and unfortunately the one we've got.
You might be quite certain it is wrong Richard but you are misinformed if you have been informed, or wrong if it is your analysis.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
Jess Philips on her feet....asking if PM supports "gagging" of complainants - but doesn't name anyone - May won't comment on specific case before the courts but says government will propose changes to stop NDAs being used for 'gagging'.
Didn't Jess Philips boast of stabbing Corbyn in the chest, not his back. Can't seem to remember Yevette Cooper saying anything to condemn her for some reason....
I'd give her the benefit of the doubt on that one - she took a wellknown metaphor and ran with it rather than just make up a random bloodcurdling threat.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
The problem with that view is that it ignores the reality of the negotiating position. Unless the government was going to authorise massive infrastructure spending to create the capacity for a hard Brexit, then it could only ever be a bluff intended to intimidate the EU, who wouldn't have changed their position just because May had a bigger majority.
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
No. Leave led most polls a fortnight before the poll and not one of the final polls gave Remain a lead of 10% or more over Leave as in this poll.
No Deal means economic catastrophe and quite possibly the break up of the UK with Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
Very much a politician's response - i.e. answering a different question. My point was that with a month to go, before the campaigning started in earnest, there were polls showing remain ahead by 18 points.
This changed during and at the end of the campaign. Your views are extremely well known on the effects of No Deal - and you may well be right - but not everyone will think the same way and there is the possibility that after months of negative coverage the proponents of No Deal might be able, within a campaign, to put forward a positive view of No Deal that resonates with the public. It would be foolish to dismiss such a possibility.
Well nothing can be dismissed but if you think voters will vote for almost 10% lost GDP, mass unemployment and the potential breakup of the UK from No Deal that is up to you
It's up to the population as a
whole, should they be asked the question again - as I think they may well and have bet to that effect. The problems with your argument are twofold:
1. The eventualities you describe are not a fact. They are a prediction. I expect a No Deal campaign to successfully argue that the vast majority of predictions of doom that were supposed to happen after the vote proved to be false, therefore why should they be right this time?
2. There are numerous other credible reasons to leave the EU which you are dismissing because you think the forecast impending financial disaster trumps them all. It's a trade off, and other people might weigh up the arguments on each side and come to the opposite conclusion, especially bearing in mind point 1. As for me, I weighed up the pros and cons last time and voted to remain, and may do so again, but it's not an obvious decision for everyone.
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
No. Leave led most polls a fortnight before the poll and not one of the final polls gave Remain a lead of 10% or more over Leave as in this poll.
No Deal means economic catastrophe and quite possibly the break up of the UK with Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
Very much a politician's response - i.e. answering a different question. My point was that with a month to go, before the campaigning started in earnest, there were polls showing remain ahead by 18 points.
This changed during and at the end of the campaign. Your views are extremely well known on the effects of No Deal - and you may well be right - but not everyone will think the same way and there is the possibility that after months of negative coverage the proponents of No Deal might be able, within a campaign, to put forward a positive view of No Deal that resonates with the public. It would be foolish to dismiss such a possibility.
Well nothing can be dismissed but if you think voters will vote for almost 10% lost GDP, mass unemployment and the potential breakup of the UK from No Deal that is up to you
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
2) Most huge constitutional changes, to get legitimacy, need 66% to pass. This was not the case for the EU ref, but considering the 52/48 margin we should consider why it is the convention. Massive constitutional change takes time, political capital and political will. With a 2/3rds mandate, politicians and institutions know they can make the changes without immediate political fallout and with some sort of claim to popular credibility. With a 52/48 margin, such a weak mandate comes with lack of political will; if the population are fickle you will not reap benefits by listening to 52%.
3) Since the vote roughly a third of Remainers have been in the "get on with it" camp. They "respect the result". But, as time has gone by, nothing has been done to get these people on board with the deal. Talk about No Deal, about Remoaners and traitors alienates this part of the populace.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
You might be quite certain it is wrong Richard but you are misinformed if you have been informed, or wrong if it is your analysis.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
No, you are wrong. You've ignored my point about the personal and political authority; she'd have been seen as a winner, which make a massive difference. She would have been able to point to a popular mandate for her approach, which would have helped a lot. The EU would know that she could deliver, which would have made concessions easier. Plus, as well as the raw numbers, which would have meant she'd not have been dependent on the DUP and would not have had to worry about a few rebels, the new MPs would have owed her their loyalty.
HYUFD - apologies, my formatting went haywire. My response was
It's actually about the population as a whole, should they be asked the question again - as I think they may well and have bet to that effect. The problems with your argument are twofold:
1. The eventualities you describe are not a fact. They are a prediction. I expect a No Deal campaign to successfully argue that the vast majority of predictions of doom that were supposed to happen after the vote proved to be false, therefore why should they be right this time?
2. There are numerous other credible reasons to leave the EU which you are dismissing because you think the forecast impending financial disaster trumps them all. It's a trade off, and other people might weigh up the arguments on each side and come to the opposite conclusion, especially bearing in mind point 1. As for me, I weighed up the pros and cons last time and voted to remain, and may do so again, but it's not an obvious decision for everyone.
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
Probably every black cab driver in London....
Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.
There’s one household name who lives in the Caribbean with form
You might be quite certain it is wrong Richard but you are misinformed if you have been informed, or wrong if it is your analysis.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
No, you are wrong. You've ignored my point about the personal and political authority; she'd have been seen as a winner, which make a massive difference. She would have been able to point to a popular mandate for her approach, which would have helped a lot. The EU would know that she could deliver, which would have made concessions easier. Plus, as well as the raw numbers, which would have meant she'd not have been dependent on the DUP and would not have had to worry about a few rebels, the new MPs would have owed her their loyalty.
Quite. For a quick counterfactual of how being seen a winner works (Compared to expectations) look at Corbyn's position within the PLP now.
Jess Philips on her feet....asking if PM supports "gagging" of complainants - but doesn't name anyone - May won't comment on specific case before the courts but says government will propose changes to stop NDAs being used for 'gagging'.
Didn't Jess Philips boast of stabbing Corbyn in the chest, not his back. Can't seem to remember Yevette Cooper saying anything to condemn her for some reason....
I'd give her the benefit of the doubt on that one - she took a wellknown metaphor and ran with it rather than just make up a random bloodcurdling threat.
What about George Osborne and freezers?
No benefit of the doubt there. It was unpleasant and wrong. In his partial defence, I believe it was not intended to be made public and all of us choose our words less carefully in private and sometimes say things that we regret. And he apologised for it.
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
No. Leave led most polls a fortnight before the poll and not one of the final polls gave Remain a lead of 10% or more over Leave as in this poll.
No Deal means economic catastrophe and quite possibly the break up of the UK with Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
Very much a politician's response - i.e. answering a different question. My point was that with a month to go, before the campaigning started in earnest, there were polls showing remain ahead by 18 points.
This changed during and at the end of the campaign. Your views are extremely well known on the effects of No Deal - and you may well be right - but not everyone will think the same way and there is the possibility that after months of negative coverage the proponents of No Deal might be able, within a campaign, to put forward a positive view of No Deal that resonates with the public. It would be foolish to dismiss such a possibility.
Well nothing can be dismissed but if you think voters will vote for almost 10% lost GDP, mass unemployment and the potential breakup of the UK from No Deal that is up to you
And yet still more appealing than Corbyn...
The 2nd referendum question would not be "No Deal" versus "Corbyn as PM" though would it?
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave
The median position of the average voter is now to Leave the EU but only with a Deal
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
No. Leave led most polls a fortnight before the poll and not one of the final polls gave Remain a lead of 10% or more over Leave as in this poll.
No Deal means economic catastrophe and quite possibly the break up of the UK with Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
Very much a politician's response - i.e. answering a different question. My point was that with a month to go, before the campaigning started in earnest, there were polls showing remain ahead by 18 points.
This changed during and at the end of the campaign. Your views are extremely well known on the effects of No Deal - and you may well be right - but not everyone will think the same way and there is the possibility that after months of negative coverage the proponents of No Deal might be able, within a campaign, to put forward a positive view of No Deal that resonates with the public. It would be foolish to dismiss such a possibility.
Well nothing can be dismissed but if you think voters will vote for almost 10% lost GDP, mass unemployment and the potential breakup of the UK from No Deal that is up to you
And yet still more appealing than Corbyn...
The 2nd referendum question would not be "No Deal" versus "Corbyn as PM" though would it?
Indeed, though plenty seemed to view the GE as Corbyn as PM vs Brexit. If the Tories ditch May and we get say David Davis or Boris Johnson god forbid taking the country toward "No deal", I'll probably join HYUFD on the march to be honest.
I am always surprised at the binary "win / lose" mentality of the referendum.
1) During the campaign a number of prominent Leavers maintained that leaving the EU would not necessarily mean leaving the SM or CU. Indeed, many of them argued if we voted Leave and didn't like it we could have a second referendum. This line of argument could easily have swayed some people who liked some aspects of the EU and not others. So, if even 2% of the vote was swayed by this argument, already a majority for Leave is precarious.
2) Most huge constitutional changes, to get legitimacy, need 66% to pass. This was not the case for the EU ref, but considering the 52/48 margin we should consider why it is the convention. Massive constitutional change takes time, political capital and political will. With a 2/3rds mandate, politicians and institutions know they can make the changes without immediate political fallout and with some sort of claim to popular credibility. With a 52/48 margin, such a weak mandate comes with lack of political will; if the population are fickle you will not reap benefits by listening to 52%.
3) Since the vote roughly a third of Remainers have been in the "get on with it" camp. They "respect the result". But, as time has gone by, nothing has been done to get these people on board with the deal. Talk about No Deal, about Remoaners and traitors alienates this part of the populace.
4) It should also be noted that almost all of the above is due to Tory in fighting. Cameron wanted this to be the end of the EU question for him and his parties sake, not the country at large. So his "only one vote" and "only 50%" stuff was all about keeping sceptics in the party happy whilst being able to scare pro EU people into the importance of the vote. Leavers campaigning on lies felt safe in the knowledge the Remain campaign wouldn't threaten Tory party unity because that was Cameron's job, whereas they could throw any bomb they wanted. May then came on board and catered to the ERG and DUP so she could govern, and instead of tacking to the middle and going for those 3rd of remainers who would happily see the result sorted, went straight to attempts at Iron Lady 2.0. This entire exercise has been scuppered not by remainers, not by the EU, but by the utter fecklessness of the leaders of the Tory party, and the decision by Cameron way back that the Tory party matters more than unity in the country.
Very good point. The most devious and destructive trick the Leave Ultras ever played was making everyone think that 52% consisted entirely of mini Rees Moggs.
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
Probably every black cab driver in London....
Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.
There’s one household name who lives in the Caribbean with form
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
Probably every black cab driver in London....
Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.
There are two who publicise themselves and one who has become notorious due to the failure of a high-street shop that he used to own. Maybe one of the supermarket bosses too. But I think this is the case of ego-stroking, or of being considered prominent within their own domain.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
The problem with that view is that it ignores the reality of the negotiating position. Unless the government was going to authorise massive infrastructure spending to create the capacity for a hard Brexit, then it could only ever be a bluff intended to intimidate the EU, who wouldn't have changed their position just because May had a bigger majority.
Jess Philips on her feet....asking if PM supports "gagging" of complainants - but doesn't name anyone - May won't comment on specific case before the courts but says government will propose changes to stop NDAs being used for 'gagging'.
Didn't Jess Philips boast of stabbing Corbyn in the chest, not his back. Can't seem to remember Yevette Cooper saying anything to condemn her for some reason....
I'd give her the benefit of the doubt on that one - she took a wellknown metaphor and ran with it rather than just make up a random bloodcurdling threat.
What about George Osborne and freezers?
No benefit of the doubt there. It was unpleasant and wrong. In his partial defence, I believe it was not intended to be made public and all of us choose our words less carefully in private and sometimes say things that we regret. And he apologised for it.
But still, unpleasant and wrong.
That's a fair point about it being in private. I think a lot of politicians think they are in an episode of The Thick of It.
You might be quite certain it is wrong Richard but you are misinformed if you have been informed, or wrong if it is your analysis.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
No, you are wrong. You've ignored my point about the personal and political authority; she'd have been seen as a winner, which make a massive difference. She would have been able to point to a popular mandate for her approach, which would have helped a lot. The EU would know that she could deliver, which would have made concessions easier. Plus, as well as the raw numbers, which would have meant she'd not have been dependent on the DUP and would not have had to worry about a few rebels, the new MPs would have owed her their loyalty.
I haven't ignored anything. Had she won she would have enthusiastically implemented a hard Brexit. But of course you have your theory and her advisers had theirs so I suppose people on PB can make their own minds up as to which version they prefer.
You might be quite certain it is wrong Richard but you are misinformed if you have been informed, or wrong if it is your analysis.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
No, you are wrong. You've ignored my point about the personal and political authority; she'd have been seen as a winner, which make a massive difference. She would have been able to point to a popular mandate for her approach, which would have helped a lot. The EU would know that she could deliver, which would have made concessions easier. Plus, as well as the raw numbers, which would have meant she'd not have been dependent on the DUP and would not have had to worry about a few rebels, the new MPs would have owed her their loyalty.
I haven't ignored anything. Had she won she would have enthusiastically implemented a hard Brexit. But of course you have your theory and her advisers had theirs so I suppose people on PB can make their own minds up as to which version they prefer.
Ah, so we agree that with a big majority she would have been able to impose her approach to Brexit on the party and Commons. The disagreement seems to be about what that approach would have been if she had had a free hand. I've no idea why you think it would have been different from that outlined in her Lancaster House speech, or why you think she would have ignored economic constraints, or changed her mind on the concerns raised by Nissan.
You might be quite certain it is wrong Richard but you are misinformed if you have been informed, or wrong if it is your analysis.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
No, you are wrong. You've ignored my point about the personal and political authority; she'd have been seen as a winner, which make a massive difference. She would have been able to point to a popular mandate for her approach, which would have helped a lot. The EU would know that she could deliver, which would have made concessions easier. Plus, as well as the raw numbers, which would have meant she'd not have been dependent on the DUP and would not have had to worry about a few rebels, the new MPs would have owed her their loyalty.
I haven't ignored anything. Had she won she would have enthusiastically implemented a hard Brexit. But of course you have your theory and her advisers had theirs so I suppose people on PB can make their own minds up as to which version they prefer.
Ah, so we agree that with a big majority she would have been able to impose her approach to Brexit on the party and Commons. The disagreement seems to be about what that approach would have been if she had had a free hand. I've no idea why you think it would have been different from that outlined in her Lancaster House speech, or why you think she would have ignored economic constraints, or changed her mind on the concerns raised by Nissan.
I think one interesting counter-factual is what would have happened if Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were still on the scene. It's reasonable to assume Timothy wouldn't have supported what's happened, so would May have forced him out after he'd served his purpose of burnishing her Brexiteer credentials?
O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?
I think I remember they ran an article after asking for the experiences of readers which included stories from landlords about bad tenants as well as stories from tenants about bad landlords.
You might be quite certain it is wrong Richard but you are misinformed if you have been informed, or wrong if it is your analysis.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
No, you are wrong. You've ignored my point about the personal and political authority; she'd have been seen as a winner, which make a massive difference. She would have been able to point to a popular mandate for her approach, which would have helped a lot. The EU would know that she could deliver, which would have made concessions easier. Plus, as well as the raw numbers, which would have meant she'd not have been dependent on the DUP and would not have had to worry about a few rebels, the new MPs would have owed her their loyalty.
I haven't ignored anything. Had she won she would have enthusiastically implemented a hard Brexit. But of course you have your theory and her advisers had theirs so I suppose people on PB can make their own minds up as to which version they prefer.
Ah, so we agree that with a big majority she would have been able to impose her approach to Brexit on the party and Commons. The disagreement seems to be about what that approach would have been if she had had a free hand. I've no idea why you think it would have been different from that outlined in her Lancaster House speech, or why you think she would have ignored economic constraints, or changed her mind on the concerns raised by Nissan.
I've explained that she wanted to implement a hard Brexit. I don't see a point in wargaming ex-post what flavour it would have been. I suppose she would have run into all the constraints that you mention, except she would have had a large, hard Brexit majority supporting her and informing her decisions without having to worry about Chequers' rebels or the Labour Party or such like (or the DUP, on the other side, although they would have been like pigs in sh1t).
As I said, this was the view from No. 10 on the day of the election. But she didn't get the large majority so all the woulda/shoulda/couldas are moot.
I think one interesting counter-factual is what would have happened if Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were still on the scene. It's reasonable to assume Timothy wouldn't have supported whats happened, so would May have forced him out after he'd served his purpose of burnishing her Brexiteer credentials?
Yes, that is an interesting one. Hard to know how he would have reacted if he were in on the negotiations rather than sniping from the sidelines.
O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?
I think I remember they ran an article after asking for the experiences of readers which included stories from landlords about bad tenants as well as stories from tenants about bad landlords.
3 questions:
How does UK housing stock compare to other first world countries ? Do other places have the same issues for tenants and landlords ? Where can we look to to be better ?
As I said, this was the view from No. 10 on the day of the election. But she didn't get the large majority so all the woulda/shoulda/couldas are moot.
May is a remarkably cynical politician. I don't think even the view from No. 10 could be taken at face value.
haha good point but if you think about it, she called the election because she thought she would in fact get the big majority so at that point (prior to 10.00.01 on election day) there was no reason to think anything else...
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
Probably every black cab driver in London....
Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.
There’s one household name who lives in the Caribbean with form
We will have to wait until the story hits the news media in the US (or Scotland, but I suspect that horse is firmly locked in the stable) and I would suggest that putting or even naming possibles on this site might be dangerous fot OGH
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
Probably every black cab driver in London....
Isn't "prominent businessman" almost a contradiction in terms? How many famous UK-based businessmen can you think of? I can get to around, er, two. I'm sure that people who work in the City can name dozens, just as we could name dozens of MPs, but Joe Bloggs would probably struggle with either.
There’s one household name who lives in the Caribbean with form
We will have to wait until the story hits the news media in the US (or Scotland, but I suspect that horse is firmly locked in the stable) and I would suggest that putting or even naming possibles on this site might be dangerous fot OGH
The person hinted at above does not match the frame of the black outline on the Telegraph.
O/T: I see the Guardian are majoring on 'rogue landlords' again. Has the Guardian ever in its history run an article critical of feckless tenants?
I think I remember they ran an article after asking for the experiences of readers which included stories from landlords about bad tenants as well as stories from tenants about bad landlords.
3 questions:
How does UK housing stock compare to other first world countries ? Do other places have the same issues for tenants and landlords ? Where can we look to to be better ?
The US seems similar although they have a whole nother set of issues with Homeowners' Associations and the like
I'm not (And don't if you know who it is) trying to lead anyone into naming the businessman on the front of the Telegraph, but how would Jess Phillips know who it is ? Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
It is an interesting conundrum. According to the Telegraph, a leading Businessman, but is that in the same sense as a 'Senior Tory', who often turns out to be someone we have hardly heard of?
If you are a leading businessman with a national profile, then you are one of a very small number - 4 or 5 to most people in the nation?
By not naming the individual are you putting all these people under suspicion? Do they have any rights not to be besmirched by association?
If it is a leading businessman who is the CEO or Chair of almost any footsie 100 company, he / she will be virtually unknown to the populas at large.
Comments
I'm not sure what odds the betting market had on election night- only source I could find is http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/donald-trump-president-gamble/ saying it was 5/1. 538 gave him a 28.6% chance. So basically your bet was backing the model over the market.
(If you didn't like it, please don't be mean)
Is there some special source of MP knowledge ?
US Rustbelt seats struck me as highly correlated. I didnt see value in Trump in Ohio, but did find it in Michigan and Wisconsin. Win one and likely to win several.
The three links variously proposed suggest the ancient world was just a tad incestuous.
Its being so cheerful that keeps me going
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
Tories 39
Lab 37
LD 10
Clear swing to the LDs from both the Tories and Labour since GE17
https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1055044972926382087
Before we get too superior about American politicians not understanding politics and not learning from their mistakes, Cameron lost Brexit by following the same fear-based strategy that came within a whisker of losing Scotland. And we could go on.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChukaUmunna/status/1055066261489664000
No Deal means economic catastrophe and quite possibly the break up of the UK with Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
In any case, I should imagine it's common knowledge in London political and media (and therefore cabbie!) circles.
Once PMQs is over the SNP MP Stuart C. McDonald makes a point of order, asking the Speaker, John Bercow, about the news – first reported in the Sun – that the anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, dined in parliament yesterday following a hearing at the Old Bailey over alleged contempt of court.
McDonald asks if Bercow can intervene to prevent Robinson, who McDonald calls “a man who is a guilty as he is of stirring up racial hatred”, being allowed back in parliament.
Bercow says he agrees with McDonald’s assessment of Robinson, calling the founder of the English Defence League street group “a loathsome, obnoxious, repellent individual”. But, Bercow adds, it is “outside of my remit” to dictate what happens in the Lords – Robinson was a guest of the Ukip peer Lord Pearson.
Bercow advises the SNP MP to instead write to the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, and indicates he would be happy for McDonald to mention Bercow’s view.
"LibDem vote crashes after Cable attends People's Vote march" would be just as fair a comment.....
The fantasy that she needed a majority to face down the ERG-o-loons was just that - fantasy.
I have seen Ladbrokes doing Senate seat numbers. Given the way things are going (a poll has the Republicans up in IN as well as ND and they seem confident on MI)), I am tempted by the 5/1 on 53.
The GOP are miles behind in Michigan, even Romney won IN and ND
Sorry meant MO.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36271589
This changed during and at the end of the campaign. Your views are extremely well known on the effects of No Deal - and you may well be right - but not everyone will think the same way and there is the possibility that after months of negative coverage the proponents of No Deal might be able, within a campaign, to put forward a positive view of No Deal that resonates with the public. It would be foolish to dismiss such a possibility.
You may remember I had a friend at No.10 at the time (now long gone) who texted me at 9.40pm on the day of the election that they (the friend was part of May's team) still expected a 40-70 seat majority. That friend made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that the idea that a large majority would mean she could face down the ERG to be absolutely not the case.
Happy to discuss views of what it all means and will mean, but that is not a discussion point.
How do you find a median between several non-ordinal options?
As voters voted 52% Leave but prefer Remain over No Deal by a 10% margin
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7
At this point in time. A month from the Brexit vote there were polls showing remain 18 points ahead and Remain was at 1/6.
Don't be so sure No Deal couldn't win after a campaign.
No. Leave led most polls a fortnight before the poll and not one of the final polls gave Remain a lead of 10% or more over Leave as in this poll.
No Deal means economic catastrophe and quite possibly the break up of the UK with Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
Very much a politician's response - i.e. answering a different question. My point was that with a month to go, before the campaigning started in earnest, there were polls showing remain ahead by 18 points.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36271589
This changed during and at the end of the campaign. Your views are extremely well known on the effects of No Deal - and you may well be right - but not everyone will think the same way and there is the possibility that after months of negative coverage the proponents of No Deal might be able, within a campaign, to put forward a positive view of No Deal that resonates with the public. It would be foolish to dismiss such a possibility.
Well nothing can be dismissed but if you think voters will vote for almost 10% lost GDP, mass unemployment and the potential breakup of the UK from No Deal that is up to you
It's up to the population as a
whole, should they be asked the question again - as I think they may well and have bet to that effect. The problems with your argument are twofold:
1. The eventualities you describe are not a fact. They are a prediction. I expect a No Deal campaign to successfully argue that the vast majority of predictions of doom that were supposed to happen after the vote proved to be false, therefore why should they be right this time?
2. There are numerous other credible reasons to leave the EU which you are dismissing because you think the forecast impending financial disaster trumps them all. It's a trade off, and other people might weigh up the arguments on each side and come to the opposite conclusion, especially bearing in mind point 1. As for me, I weighed up the pros and cons last time and voted to remain, and may do so again, but it's not an obvious decision for everyone.
It's actually about the population as a whole, should they be asked the question again - as I think they may well and have bet to that effect. The problems with your argument are twofold:
1. The eventualities you describe are not a fact. They are a prediction. I expect a No Deal campaign to successfully argue that the vast majority of predictions of doom that were supposed to happen after the vote proved to be false, therefore why should they be right this time?
2. There are numerous other credible reasons to leave the EU which you are dismissing because you think the forecast impending financial disaster trumps them all. It's a trade off, and other people might weigh up the arguments on each side and come to the opposite conclusion, especially bearing in mind point 1. As for me, I weighed up the pros and cons last time and voted to remain, and may do so again, but it's not an obvious decision for everyone.
But still, unpleasant and wrong.
If the Tories ditch May and we get say David Davis or Boris Johnson god forbid taking the country toward "No deal", I'll probably join HYUFD on the march to be honest.
As I said, this was the view from No. 10 on the day of the election. But she didn't get the large majority so all the woulda/shoulda/couldas are moot.
How does UK housing stock compare to other first world countries ?
Do other places have the same issues for tenants and landlords ?
Where can we look to to be better ?
An unsustainable position.
The black outline / shadow gives it away IMHO.
If you are a leading businessman with a national profile, then you are one of a very small number - 4 or 5 to most people in the nation?
By not naming the individual are you putting all these people under suspicion? Do they have any rights not to be besmirched by association?
If it is a leading businessman who is the CEO or Chair of almost any footsie 100 company, he / she will be virtually unknown to the populas at large.