Mr. Pete, to be fair, stranger things have happened. And are happening.
Boris Johnson as our esteemed leader is about as strange as things get...surely?
I hope you're right, with JC waiting in the wings
Much as I detest Corbs, Johnson's sense of entitlement is somehow even worse. Johnson falling at tbe final hurdle, even if that meant a Corbyn government and all my children's inheritance spent on creating a Palestinian homeland in my back garden, would be worth it.
I obviously value my back garden more than you do yours.
To witness Johnson's absolute and complete humiliation it seems like excellent value.
I am also obviously more caring about my family's (and quite possibly, everyone else's) financial well being.
This is a convincing academic paper on the impact of welfare cuts on support for Brexit, arguing that cuts to welfare after 2010 reduced incomes for the lower-skilled and contributed to rising political frustration and support for UKIP. As academic papers go this is a very convincing one - the empirical work is meticulous and the effects the author finds are big enough to have swung the vote. Bottom line: Osborne needs to stop bit lching about Brexit - he caused it.
I don't think these figures add up really - Tories only on 26% with Brexit Pty on 12%?
I don't follow that.
Surely the closer the Tories get to adopting No Deal as their policy, the closer the Tory figure plus the Brexit Party figure should be to the percentage supporting No Deal?
Per yesterday's poll, that's 28%, not 38%. Which would suggest the Tories have further to fall, if anything.
Boris supports Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st and voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3.
Farage and the Brexit Party reject the Withdrawal Agreement outright and want to go straight to No Deal WTO terms so that does not follow
The problem is that no one in the world except you believes there is going to be time for us to leave the EU with a deal by 31 October. Not even Boris Johnson.
He does.
Boris wins a majority by October 31st, then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement by October 31st too with the temporary Customs Union for GB May asked Barnier to impose removed.
No longer reliant on the DUP having won a Tory majority he could also hold a confirmatory referendum in NI on the backstop
So Boris is going to keep us in the customs union? Anyone told Mark Francois et al?
Nope, Boris takes GB out of the Customs Union, he lets NI voters decide if they want to keep it in NI until a technical solution is found to the Irish border
And when the EU state its not an option (remember the backstop arrived only when it become obvious the issues the Good Friday agreement created).
The EU have said that is an option, Barnier offered May a FTA for GB ages ago but with the backstop for NI until a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Do keep up
It is you who needs to keep up. The reason this was rejected by the British was because it involved treating NI differently to the rest of Britain a bit of a no-no as far as Unionists are concerned.
I'm not sure that Unionism still exists to any great extent in the UK outside the chattering classes and half of NI.
At first glance, I read that as Unicornism. That certsinly still exists in the UK!
Does unicornism deserve a capital in your world. A pointer methinks.
Mr. Pete, to be fair, stranger things have happened. And are happening.
Boris Johnson as our esteemed leader is about as strange as things get...surely?
I hope you're right, with JC waiting in the wings
Much as I detest Corbs, Johnson's sense of entitlement is somehow even worse. Johnson falling at tbe final hurdle, even if that meant a Corbyn government and all my children's inheritance spent on creating a Palestinian homeland in my back garden, would be worth it.
Churchill had that same 'sense of entitlement'. There's a degree to which I don't like that, but on the other hand if you're so sure you're the man for the job, then that's interesting.
I suspect you can engender happiness, culture, and warmth in your back garden which tells you that your culture isn't tied to and land.
It is quite remarkable that Johnson has cultivated this notion that he is the next Churchill. Churchill had a serious side and was prone to bouts of depression leading to self-doubt. I would be surprised if Johnson has ever questioned his manifold failings. Johnson is no Churchill!
According to Ipsos-Mori only 17% very likely to vote Conservative if Hunt were leader and only 19% if Boris were leader so poor compared to the 26% among those certain to vote (9/10) Conservative at present.
Only 6% of other party voters would switch if Boris became Party leader and just 3% if Hunt became leader so again no great groundswell of support there.
Ipsos Mori actually had 36% likely to vote Tory under Boris and 32% likely to vote Tory under Hunt so both significantly higher than the 26% currently voting Tory.
21% of current non Tory voters are likely to vote Tory under Boris and 14% under Hunt
MORI’s own summary of its poll finding: ”There is little evidence that either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt would make much difference to how likely people would be to consider voting Conservative.”
Believe the official report - not the Comical HYali spin!
Just read it
Ipsos Mori has 17% of 2017 Labour voters likely to vote Tory if Boris is Tory leader and 12% likely to vote Tory if Hunt is Tory leader (p36 and 38 of the tables)
Richard Navabi has said he will vote LD if Boris is leader
Bit shallow to vote on personality not policy isn't it ?
But one wonders if personality is a big issue why he voted for Mrs May.
Not really. If you believe someone to be unfit to be PM - a position which, as Mrs May has shown, allows a great deal of scope for exercising personal power even when opposed by almost everyone else in Parliament - then the personality of the potential incumbent becomes a matter of great importance.
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what makes you so convinced that No Deal ineluctably leads to economic apocalypse?
Not economic apocalypse (except in Northern Ireland), but the media full every day for a long period of farmers going bust, fishing fleets being mothballed, car manufacturers laying off staff or withdrawing from the UK altogether, supplies being held up at ports, produce rotting, the pound collapsing, lorries held up on the approach to Dover, British ex-pats being left without medical cover, etc etc etc.
What this will all mean in macro-economic terms is very hard indeed to say. I don't really think traditional economic models are any use at all here - no advanced Western economy has ever imposed wide-ranging economic sanctions on itself before - but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the pound will head down to the range $1 to $1.10 and the overall hit to UK GDP will be comparable to the 2008/9 crisis, and the unemployment effect much worse than 2008/9.
I am less pessimistic, but I still think it would have fairly negative effects. The real risk for the UK is that a negative cycle kicks off where an external shock - No Deal Brexit - kicks off an excessively rapid rebalancing of the UK economy, and the household savings rate swings from below equilibrium to above.
In other words, I worry about the UK economy becoming Spain 2010-2013.
I don't think these figures add up really - Tories only on 26% with Brexit Pty on 12%?
I don't follow that.
Surely the closer the Tories get to adopting No Deal as their policy, the closer the Tory figure plus the Brexit Party figure should be to the percentage supporting No Deal?
Per yesterday's poll, that's 28%, not 38%. Which would suggest the Tories have further to fall, if anything.
Boris supports Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st and voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3.
Farage and the Brexit Party reject the Withdrawal Agreement outright and want to go straight to No Deal WTO terms so that does not follow
The problem is that no one in the world except you believes there is going to be time for us to leave the EU with a deal by 31 October. Not even Boris Johnson.
He does.
Boris wins a majority by October 31st, then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement by October 31st too with the temporary Customs Union for GB May asked Barnier to impose removed.
No longer reliant on the DUP having won a Tory majority he could also hold a confirmatory referendum in NI on the backstop
So Boris is going to keep us in the customs union? Anyone told Mark Francois et al?
Nope, Boris takes GB out of the Customs Union, he lets NI voters decide if they want to keep it in NI until a technical solution is found to the Irish border
And when the EU state its not an option (remember the backstop arrived only when it become obvious the issues the Good Friday agreement created).
The EU have said that is an option, Barnier offered May a FTA for GB ages ago but with the backstop for NI until a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Do keep up
It is you who needs to keep up. The reason this was rejected by the British was because it involved treating NI differently to the rest of Britain a bit of a no-no as far as Unionists are concerned.
I'm not sure that Unionism still exists to any great extent in the UK outside the chattering classes and half of NI.
At first glance, I read that as Unicornism. That certsinly still exists in the UK!
Does unicornism deserve a capital in your world. A pointer methinks.
Off topic but of philosophical interest. A punter has lost the thick end of 200 grand by getting the name of the horse wrong on the betting slip. The Guardian isn't taking sides, but should they have paid out anyway?
Absolutely not. He wrote the wrong name and didn't verify it. Of course it sucks for him, but the bookie has done nothing wrong here, it's entirely his own cock up. And the sum of money doesn't really change that.
Bit less here than meets the eye. It wasn't a spelling mistake, it was a real horse really running in another race. It looks a bit like post event rationalisation to me. something all punters are a little prone to.
Except for the claim he did raise it before the race with the shop staff. Betting shop staff these days are not trained like they used to be -- and are often just warm bodies to empty the FOBTs and lock the door. The last time I asked for an ante-post bet on the Derby, the staff had no idea what I was talking about. In this case, the shop should have got on the phone to head office to agree a course of action. I'd say there should be an ex-gratia payment on these grounds, even though by the rules, the name of the horse takes precedence over the race time.
The larger problem is this is the way betting shops have always worked. They take the slip and the money, but only look at it when the result is known, and then decide whether they want to accept it or not, and on what terms. If the bet loses, they don't look and keep the money. If it wins, well, maybe there is a get-out clause.
There is a similar issue in the Bet365 case (recently withdrawn so presumably settled out of court with an NDA) where a student won a million quid but the bet was not paid because she was fronting for someone else. The bet was accepted, until it won.
The Gambling Commission, and even Tom Watson's proposals, are too hung up on addiction and forget about consumer (punter) protection.
I notice HYUFD has not commented on the BXP's decline to just 12% in the Ipsos-MORI poll
Worth noting that Ipsos Mori make clear they do not prompt for BXP in that poll. I have no idea how much impact that has but I suspect it must have some.
This is a convincing academic paper on the impact of welfare cuts on support for Brexit, arguing that cuts to welfare after 2010 reduced incomes for the lower-skilled and contributed to rising political frustration and support for UKIP. As academic papers go this is a very convincing one - the empirical work is meticulous and the effects the author finds are big enough to have swung the vote. Bottom line: Osborne needs to stop bit lching about Brexit - he caused it.
I'd say 'very unconvincing' - a brief glance suggests a time term which makes no sense. What do you think the constraints are on the UKIP vote? This paper has it as well beyond the 0%-100% window you might imagine.
According to Ipsos-Mori only 17% very likely to vote Conservative if Hunt were leader and only 19% if Boris were leader so poor compared to the 26% among those certain to vote (9/10) Conservative at present.
Only 6% of other party voters would switch if Boris became Party leader and just 3% if Hunt became leader so again no great groundswell of support there.
Ipsos Mori actually had 36% likely to vote Tory under Boris and 32% likely to vote Tory under Hunt so both significantly higher than the 26% currently voting Tory.
21% of current non Tory voters are likely to vote Tory under Boris and 14% under Hunt
MORI’s own summary of its poll finding: ”There is little evidence that either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt would make much difference to how likely people would be to consider voting Conservative.”
Believe the official report - not the Comical HYali spin!
Just read it
Ipsos Mori has 17% of 2017 Labour voters likely to vote Tory if Boris is Tory leader and 12% likely to vote Tory if Hunt is Tory leader (p36 and 38 of the tables)
Ipsos Mori also has 12% of 2017 LD voters likely to vote Tory if Boris or Hunt are Tory leader.
So in total 29% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party while only 15% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party.
With Hunt 14% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Hunt led Tories and only 11% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Hunt led Tories
Just been searching on twitter for Northern Ireland backstop referendum tweets. There are a few. None of them before Portillo suggested it two weeks ago. None of them by Boris advisors. Most of them (at least 30) by HYUFD.
As I posted before and RCS will attest it was posted on this site a week ago but clearly you are too lazy to go back through old threads to find it, that is up to you.
Boris made clear yesterday No Deal was a million to one shot as he knows a FTA for GB is what he will do
@tgeducation Follow Follow @tgeducation More Speculation that Boris Johnston might offer to ditch the UK backstop, but retain the NI backstop, to cut a deal with the EU. The DUP would go apoplectic, but he might offer a NI referendum on this to outflank them. Odd times."
Enables a FTA for GB and gets the ERG on board and removes the temporary CU for GB true but ensures NI voters likely back the backstop so the DUP can't blame him and the way is clear for the WA to get through even on the current Commons or with a Tory majority after a snap general election"
Someone from Boris's team must have been reading this board, because right back at the beginning of this process, I suggested a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There are only two problems with this excellent idea (of mine):
1. The DUP 2. The ERG "
All of this after Portillo posited the idea. And no Boris staff involved anywhere.
I can understand why you didn't actually want anyone to bother finding this.
Off topic but of philosophical interest. A punter has lost the thick end of 200 grand by getting the name of the horse wrong on the betting slip. The Guardian isn't taking sides, but should they have paid out anyway?
Absolutely not. He wrote the wrong name and didn't verify it. Of course it sucks for him, but the bookie has done nothing wrong here, it's entirely his own cock up. And the sum of money doesn't really change that.
Bit less here than meets the eye. It wasn't a spelling mistake, it was a real horse really running in another race. It looks a bit like post event rationalisation to me. something all punters are a little prone to.
Except for the claim he did raise it before the race with the shop staff. Betting shop staff these days are not trained like they used to be -- and are often just warm bodies to empty the FOBTs and lock the door. The last time I asked for an ante-post bet on the Derby, the staff had no idea what I was talking about. In this case, the shop should have got on the phone to head office to agree a course of action. I'd say there should be an ex-gratia payment on these grounds, even though by the rules, the name of the horse takes precedence over the race time.
The larger problem is this is the way betting shops have always worked. They take the slip and the money, but only look at it when the result is known, and then decide whether they want to accept it or not, and on what terms. If the bet loses, they don't look and keep the money. If it wins, well, maybe there is a get-out clause.
There is a similar issue in the Bet365 case (recently withdrawn so presumably settled out of court with an NDA) where a student won a million quid but the bet was not paid because she was fronting for someone else. The bet was accepted, until it won.
The Gambling Commission, and even Tom Watson's proposals, are too hung up on addiction and forget about consumer (punter) protection.
It's tricky. He either wrote the wrong horse at the right time or the right horse at the wrong time. He says the former but that effectively gives him a free option on two races. BetFred really had no alternative but to do as they did otherwise everyone would be trying it on.
I'm sure it was a genuine mistake but bf can't afford to treat it like that, sadly for the guy, who still made twenty-odd grand out of it.
Off topic but of philosophical interest. A punter has lost the thick end of 200 grand by getting the name of the horse wrong on the betting slip. The Guardian isn't taking sides, but should they have paid out anyway?
Absolutely not. He wrote the wrong name and didn't verify it. Of course it sucks for him, but the bookie has done nothing wrong here, it's entirely his own cock up. And the sum of money doesn't really change that.
Bit less here than meets the eye. It wasn't a spelling mistake, it was a real horse really running in another race. It looks a bit like post event rationalisation to me. something all punters are a little prone to.
Except for the claim he did raise it before the race with the shop staff. Betting shop staff these days are not trained like they used to be -- and are often just warm bodies to empty the FOBTs and lock the door. The last time I asked for an ante-post bet on the Derby, the staff had no idea what I was talking about. In this case, the shop should have got on the phone to head office to agree a course of action. I'd say there should be an ex-gratia payment on these grounds, even though by the rules, the name of the horse takes precedence over the race time.
The larger problem is this is the way betting shops have always worked. They take the slip and the money, but only look at it when the result is known, and then decide whether they want to accept it or not, and on what terms. If the bet loses, they don't look and keep the money. If it wins, well, maybe there is a get-out clause.
There is a similar issue in the Bet365 case (recently withdrawn so presumably settled out of court with an NDA) where a student won a million quid but the bet was not paid because she was fronting for someone else. The bet was accepted, until it won.
The Gambling Commission, and even Tom Watson's proposals, are too hung up on addiction and forget about consumer (punter) protection.
This is all interesting, and of course a bit unverifiable. I can't help asking what the story would be if the horse he had named had happened to win and the other had lost - how keen would he be to assert that the horse was a mistake and, sorry, actually I lost..............
Just been searching on twitter for Northern Ireland backstop referendum tweets. There are a few. None of them before Portillo suggested it two weeks ago. None of them by Boris advisors. Most of them (at least 30) by HYUFD.
As I posted before and RCS will attest it was posted on this site a week ago but clearly you are too lazy to go back through old threads to find it, that is up to you.
Boris made clear yesterday No Deal was a million to one shot as he knows a FTA for GB is what he will do
@tgeducation Follow Follow @tgeducation More Speculation that Boris Johnston might offer to ditch the UK backstop, but retain the NI backstop, to cut a deal with the EU. The DUP would go apoplectic, but he might offer a NI referendum on this to outflank them. Odd times."
Enables a FTA for GB and gets the ERG on board and removes the temporary CU for GB true but ensures NI voters likely back the backstop so the DUP can't blame him and the way is clear for the WA to get through even on the current Commons or with a Tory majority after a snap general election"
Someone from Boris's team must have been reading this board, because right back at the beginning of this process, I suggested a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There are only two problems with this excellent idea (of mine):
1. The DUP 2. The ERG "
All of this after Portillo posited the idea. And no Boris staff involved anywhere.
I can understand why you didn't actually want anyone to bother finding this.
The DUP will support no actual plan. They plan to remain.
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what makes you so convinced that No Deal ineluctably leads to economic apocalypse?
Not economic apocalypse (except in Northern Ireland), but the media full every day for a long period of farmers going bust, fishing fleets being mothballed, car manufacturers laying off staff or withdrawing from the UK altogether, supplies being held up at ports, produce rotting, the pound collapsing, lorries held up on the approach to Dover, British ex-pats being left without medical cover, etc etc etc.
What this will all mean in macro-economic terms is very hard indeed to say. I don't really think traditional economic models are any use at all here - no advanced Western economy has ever imposed wide-ranging economic sanctions on itself before - but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the pound will head down to the range $1 to $1.10 and the overall hit to UK GDP will be comparable to the 2008/9 crisis, and the unemployment effect much worse than 2008/9.
The difference with 2008/9 is we are going in having largely fixed the roof.
I'm afraid that that is naive.
In 2008/9, the UK was still a creditor to the world. We're now a substantial debtor. We've gone from them owing us money, to us owing them.
Our household savings rate is in a worse position now than then.
And our current account, despite heading in a positive direction in 2017 has recently worsened badly again.
Just been searching on twitter for Northern Ireland backstop referendum tweets. There are a few. None of them before Portillo suggested it two weeks ago. None of them by Boris advisors. Most of them (at least 30) by HYUFD.
As I posted before and RCS will attest it was posted on this site a week ago but clearly you are too lazy to go back through old threads to find it, that is up to you.
Boris made clear yesterday No Deal was a million to one shot as he knows a FTA for GB is what he will do
@tgeducation Follow Follow @tgeducation More Speculation that Boris Johnston might offer to ditch the UK backstop, but retain the NI backstop, to cut a deal with the EU. The DUP would go apoplectic, but he might offer a NI referendum on this to outflank them. Odd times."
Enables a FTA for GB and gets the ERG on board and removes the temporary CU for GB true but ensures NI voters likely back the backstop so the DUP can't blame him and the way is clear for the WA to get through even on the current Commons or with a Tory majority after a snap general election"
Someone from Boris's team must have been reading this board, because right back at the beginning of this process, I suggested a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There are only two problems with this excellent idea (of mine):
1. The DUP 2. The ERG "
All of this after Portillo posited the idea. And no Boris staff involved anywhere.
I can understand why you didn't actually want anyone to bother finding this.
Boris said No Deal was a million to one chance yesterday as that is precisely what he is going to do
According to Ipsos-Mori only 17% very likely to vote Conservative if Hunt were leader and only 19% if Boris were leader so poor compared to the 26% among those certain to vote (9/10) Conservative at present.
Only 6% of other party voters would switch if Boris became Party leader and just 3% if Hunt became leader so again no great groundswell of support there.
Ipsos Mori actually had 36% likely to vote Tory under Boris and 32% likely to vote Tory under Hunt so both significantly higher than the 26% currently voting Tory.
21% of current non Tory voters are likely to vote Tory under Boris and 14% under Hunt
MORI’s own summary of its poll finding: ”There is little evidence that either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt would make much difference to how likely people would be to consider voting Conservative.”
Believe the official report - not the Comical HYali spin!
No, try looking at the official data and form your own conclusions independently. The data says that 32% would consider voting Con with Hunt as leader, while 62% would not. The same figures for Johnson are 36% would and 59% would not.
So net -30% for Hunt and -23% for Johnson.
Does a net 7% gap amount to "much difference"? Discuss.
Just been searching on twitter for Northern Ireland backstop referendum tweets. There are a few. None of them before Portillo suggested it two weeks ago. None of them by Boris advisors. Most of them (at least 30) by HYUFD.
As I posted before and RCS will attest it was posted on this site a week ago but clearly you are too lazy to go back through old threads to find it, that is up to you.
Boris made clear yesterday No Deal was a million to one shot as he knows a FTA for GB is what he will do
@tgeducation Follow Follow @tgeducation More Speculation that Boris Johnston might offer to ditch the UK backstop, but retain the NI backstop, to cut a deal with the EU. The DUP would go apoplectic, but he might offer a NI referendum on this to outflank them. Odd times."
Enables a FTA for GB and gets the ERG on board and removes the temporary CU for GB true but ensures NI voters likely back the backstop so the DUP can't blame him and the way is clear for the WA to get through even on the current Commons or with a Tory majority after a snap general election"
Someone from Boris's team must have been reading this board, because right back at the beginning of this process, I suggested a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There are only two problems with this excellent idea (of mine):
1. The DUP 2. The ERG "
All of this after Portillo posited the idea. And no Boris staff involved anywhere.
I can understand why you didn't actually want anyone to bother finding this.
Boris said No Deal was a million to one chance yesterday as that is precisely what he is going to do
And he will hold said referendum before October 31st as how (otherwise) do we leave on that date?
I don't think these figures add up really - Tories only on 26% with Brexit Pty on 12%?
I don't follow that.
Surely the closer the Tories get to adopting No Deal as their policy, the closer the Tory figure plus the Brexit Party figure should be to the percentage supporting No Deal?
Per yesterday's poll, that's 28%, not 38%. Which would suggest the Tories have further to fall, if anything.
Boris supports Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st and voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3.
Farage and the Brexit Party reject the Withdrawal Agreement outright and want to go straight to No Deal WTO terms so that does not follow
The problem is that no one in the world except you believes there is going to be time for us to leave the EU with a deal by 31 October. Not even Boris Johnson.
He does.
Boris wins a majority by October 31st, then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement by October 31st too with the temporary Customs Union for GB May asked Barnier to impose removed.
No longer reliant on the DUP having won a Tory majority he could also hold a confirmatory referendum in NI on the backstop
Point of Order: even if he were to pass Meaningful Vote 4 by October 31, we would still require an extension. Simply, there's probably 3-4 weeks minimum to get all the ducks in a line (EU Parliament approval, etc.)
I don't think these figures add up really - Tories only on 26% with Brexit Pty on 12%?
I don't follow that.
Surely the closer the Tories get to adopting No Deal as their policy, the closer the Tory figure plus the Brexit Party figure should be to the percentage supporting No Deal?
Per yesterday's poll, that's 28%, not 38%. Which would suggest the Tories have further to fall, if anything.
Boris supports Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st and voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3.
Farage and the Brexit Party reject the Withdrawal Agreement outright and want to go straight to No Deal WTO terms so that does not follow
The problem is that no one in the world except you believes there is going to be time for us to leave the EU with a deal by 31 October. Not even Boris Johnson.
He does.
Boris wins a majority by October 31st, then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement by October 31st too with the temporary Customs Union for GB May asked Barnier to impose removed.
No longer reliant on the DUP having won a Tory majority he could also hold a confirmatory referendum in NI on the backstop
Point of Order: even if he were to pass Meaningful Vote 4 by October 31, we would still require an extension. Simply, there's probably 3-4 weeks minimum to get all the ducks in a line (EU Parliament approval, etc.)
I don't think these figures add up really - Tories only on 26% with Brexit Pty on 12%?
I don't follow that.
Surely the closer the Tories get to adopting No Deal as their policy, the closer the Tory figure plus the Brexit Party figure should be to the percentage supporting No Deal?
Per yesterday's poll, that's 28%, not 38%. Which would suggest the Tories have further to fall, if anything.
Boris supports Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st and voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3.
Farage and the Brexit Party reject the Withdrawal Agreement outright and want to go straight to No Deal WTO terms so that does not follow
The problem is that no one in the world except you believes there is going to be time for us to leave the EU with a deal by 31 October. Not even Boris Johnson.
He does.
Boris wins a majority by October 31st, then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement by October 31st too with the temporary Customs Union for GB May asked Barnier to impose removed.
No longer reliant on the DUP having won a Tory majority he could also hold a confirmatory referendum in NI on the backstop
So Boris is going to keep us in the customs union? Anyone told Mark Francois et al?
Nope, Boris takes GB out of the Customs Union, he lets NI voters decide if they want to keep it in NI until a technical solution is found to the Irish border
And when the EU state its not an option (remember the backstop arrived only when it become obvious the issues the Good Friday agreement created).
The EU have said that is an option, Barnier offered May a FTA for GB ages ago but with the backstop for NI until a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Do keep up
It is you who needs to keep up. The reason this was rejected by the British was because it involved treating NI differently to the rest of Britain a bit of a no-no as far as Unionists are concerned.
Nope. It was only rejected by the DUP who held the whip hand over the British Government.
Once Boris wins a majority the DUP can be ignored and the FTA for GB most British voters want and the backstop to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland most Northern Irish voters want can be delivered
I wish I was as sure of anything as you are so certain of everything, to quote a great man.
Just been searching on twitter for Northern Ireland backstop referendum tweets. There are a few. None of them before Portillo suggested it two weeks ago. None of them by Boris advisors. Most of them (at least 30) by HYUFD.
As I posted before and RCS will attest it was posted on this site a week ago but clearly you are too lazy to go back through old threads to find it, that is up to you.
Boris made clear yesterday No Deal was a million to one shot as he knows a FTA for GB is what he will do
@tgeducation Follow Follow @tgeducation More Speculation that Boris Johnston might offer to ditch the UK backstop, but retain the NI backstop, to cut a deal with the EU. The DUP would go apoplectic, but he might offer a NI referendum on this to outflank them. Odd times."
Enables a FTA for GB and gets the ERG on board and removes the temporary CU for GB true but ensures NI voters likely back the backstop so the DUP can't blame him and the way is clear for the WA to get through even on the current Commons or with a Tory majority after a snap general election"
Someone from Boris's team must have been reading this board, because right back at the beginning of this process, I suggested a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There are only two problems with this excellent idea (of mine):
1. The DUP 2. The ERG "
All of this after Portillo posited the idea. And no Boris staff involved anywhere.
I can understand why you didn't actually want anyone to bother finding this.
Boris said No Deal was a million to one chance yesterday as that is precisely what he is going to do
And he will hold said referendum before October 31st as how (otherwise) do we leave on that date?
With a Tory majority he passes the Withdrawal Agreement by October 31st with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed.
Whether he holds a a referendum in NI on the backstop after that is up to him, it would be a good will gesture to show the DUP he was not completely ignoring them but as the polls show it would pass anyway but a referendum would not be needed to pass the Withdrawal Agreement once the Tories have a majority and Boris can ignore the DUP
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what makes you so convinced that No Deal ineluctably leads to economic apocalypse?
Not economic apocalypse (except in Northern Ireland), but the media full every day for a long period of farmers going bust, fishing fleets being mothballed, car manufacturers laying off staff or withdrawing from the UK altogether, supplies being held up at ports, produce rotting, the pound collapsing, lorries held up on the approach to Dover, British ex-pats being left without medical cover, etc etc etc.
What this will all mean in macro-economic terms is very hard indeed to say. I don't really think traditional economic models are any use at all here - no advanced Western economy has ever imposed wide-ranging economic sanctions on itself before - but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the pound will head down to the range $1 to $1.10 and the overall hit to UK GDP will be comparable to the 2008/9 crisis, and the unemployment effect much worse than 2008/9.
I am less pessimistic, but I still think it would have fairly negative effects. The real risk for the UK is that a negative cycle kicks off where an external shock - No Deal Brexit - kicks off an excessively rapid rebalancing of the UK economy, and the household savings rate swings from below equilibrium to above.
In other words, I worry about the UK economy becoming Spain 2010-2013.
A No Deal Brexit will be happening this autumn just as the dials on the world economy are flashing red all over the place. Look at government bonds. Inversion. People are paying Portugal to store their money for several years!
According to Ipsos-Mori only 17% very likely to vote Conservative if Hunt were leader and only 19% if Boris were leader so poor compared to the 26% among those certain to vote (9/10) Conservative at present.
Only 6% of other party voters would switch if Boris became Party leader and just 3% if Hunt became leader so again no great groundswell of support there.
Ipsos Mori actually had 36% likely to vote Tory under Boris and 32% likely to vote Tory under Hunt so both significantly higher than the 26% currently voting Tory.
21% of current non Tory voters are likely to vote Tory under Boris and 14% under Hunt
MORI’s own summary of its poll finding: ”There is little evidence that either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt would make much difference to how likely people would be to consider voting Conservative.”
Believe the official report - not the Comical HYali spin!
Just read it
Ipsos Mori has 17% of 2017 Labour voters likely to vote Tory if Boris is Tory leader and 12% likely to vote Tory if Hunt is Tory leader (p36 and 38 of the tables)
Ipsos Mori also has 12% of 2017 LD voters likely to vote Tory if Boris or Hunt are Tory leader.
So in total 29% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party while only 15% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party.
With Hunt 14% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Hunt led Tories and only 11% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Hunt led Tories
What?????
17% of 2017 Lab voters + 12% of 2017 LD voters does not equal 29% of 2017 Lab or LD voters.
Just been searching on twitter for Northern Ireland backstop referendum tweets. There are a few. None of them before Portillo suggested it two weeks ago. None of them by Boris advisors. Most of them (at least 30) by HYUFD.
As I posted before and RCS will attest it was posted on this site a week ago but clearly you are too lazy to go back through old threads to find it, that is up to you.
Boris made clear yesterday No Deal was a million to one shot as he knows a FTA for GB is what he will do
@tgeducation Follow Follow @tgeducation More Speculation that Boris Johnston might offer to ditch the UK backstop, but retain the NI backstop, to cut a deal with the EU. The DUP would go apoplectic, but he might offer a NI referendum on this to outflank them. Odd times."
Enables a FTA for GB and gets the ERG on board and removes the temporary CU for GB true but ensures NI voters likely back the backstop so the DUP can't blame him and the way is clear for the WA to get through even on the current Commons or with a Tory majority after a snap general election"
Someone from Boris's team must have been reading this board, because right back at the beginning of this process, I suggested a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There are only two problems with this excellent idea (of mine):
1. The DUP 2. The ERG "
All of this after Portillo posited the idea. And no Boris staff involved anywhere.
I can understand why you didn't actually want anyone to bother finding this.
Boris said No Deal was a million to one chance yesterday as that is precisely what he is going to do
And he will hold said referendum before October 31st as how (otherwise) do we leave on that date?
With a Tory majority he passes the Withdrawal Agreement by October 31st with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed.
Whether he holds a a referendum in NI on the backstop after that is up to him, it would be a good will gesture to show the DUP he was not completely ignoring them but as the polls show it would pass anyway but a referendum would not be needed to pass the Withdrawal Agreement once the Tories have a majority and Boris can ignore the DUP
Good will? It would completely shaft the DUP by showing how out of touch with public opinion in Northern Ireland they are.
According to Ipsos-Mori only 17% very likely to vote Conservative if Hunt were leader and only 19% if Boris were leader so poor compared to the 26% among those certain to vote (9/10) Conservative at present.
Only 6% of other party voters would switch if Boris became Party leader and just 3% if Hunt became leader so again no great groundswell of support there.
Ipsos Mori actually had 36% likely to vote Tory under Boris and 32% likely to vote Tory under Hunt so both significantly higher than the 26% currently voting Tory.
21% of current non Tory voters are likely to vote Tory under Boris and 14% under Hunt
MORI’s own summary of its poll finding: ”There is little evidence that either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt would make much difference to how likely people would be to consider voting Conservative.”
Believe the official report - not the Comical HYali spin!
No, try looking at the official data and form your own conclusions independently. The data says that 32% would consider voting Con with Hunt as leader, while 62% would not. The same figures for Johnson are 36% would and 59% would not.
So net -30% for Hunt and -23% for Johnson.
Does a net 7% gap amount to "much difference"? Discuss.
Indeed and more 2017 Labour and LD voters are likely to vote for a Boris or Hunt led Tory Party than current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Boris or Hunt led Tory Party
Off topic but of philosophical interest. A punter has lost the thick end of 200 grand by getting the name of the horse wrong on the betting slip. The Guardian isn't taking sides, but should they have paid out anyway?
Absolutely not. He wrote the wrong name and didn't verify it. Of course it sucks for him, but the bookie has done nothing wrong here, it's entirely his own cock up. And the sum of money doesn't really change that.
Bit less here than meets the eye. It wasn't a spelling mistake, it was a real horse really running in another race. It looks a bit like post event rationalisation to me. something all punters are a little prone to.
Except for the claim he did raise it before the race with the shop staff. Betting shop staff these days are not trained like they used to be -- and are often just warm bodies to empty the FOBTs and lock the door. The last time I asked for an ante-post bet on the Derby, the staff had no idea what I was talking about. In this case, the shop should have got on the phone to head office to agree a course of action. I'd say there should be an ex-gratia payment on these grounds, even though by the rules, the name of the horse takes precedence over the race time.
The larger problem is this is the way betting shops have always worked. They take the slip and the money, but only look at it when the result is known, and then decide whether they want to accept it or not, and on what terms. If the bet loses, they don't look and keep the money. If it wins, well, maybe there is a get-out clause.
There is a similar issue in the Bet365 case (recently withdrawn so presumably settled out of court with an NDA) where a student won a million quid but the bet was not paid because she was fronting for someone else. The bet was accepted, until it won.
The Gambling Commission, and even Tom Watson's proposals, are too hung up on addiction and forget about consumer (punter) protection.
When I worked for Ladbrokes we were told to check each bet for legibility, (is that a 1 or a 7? for example), enough information, legality, etc. before accepting it. The number of attempted bets on already announced non-runners was astonishing, and a total waste of everyone's time. Wasn't always possible at busy times, mind. And, in those days we did the settling ourselves in our heads. Not that difficult to have a quick look I would have thought.
Corbyn: "We deal with antisemitism very, very seriously."
Where necessary, in extreme circumstances, we will organize some kind of disciplinary procedure which is staffed by people minded not to do anything, especially if the alleged offender is in a marginal seat or is a prominent supporter of the Leader.
Bit less here than meets the eye. It wasn't a spelling mistake, it was a real horse really running in another race. It looks a bit like post event rationalisation to me. something all punters are a little prone to.
Except for the claim he did raise it before the race with the shop staff. Betting shop staff these days are not trained like they used to be -- and are often just warm bodies to empty the FOBTs and lock the door. The last time I asked for an ante-post bet on the Derby, the staff had no idea what I was talking about. In this case, the shop should have got on the phone to head office to agree a course of action. I'd say there should be an ex-gratia payment on these grounds, even though by the rules, the name of the horse takes precedence over the race time.
The larger problem is this is the way betting shops have always worked. They take the slip and the money, but only look at it when the result is known, and then decide whether they want to accept it or not, and on what terms. If the bet loses, they don't look and keep the money. If it wins, well, maybe there is a get-out clause.
There is a similar issue in the Bet365 case (recently withdrawn so presumably settled out of court with an NDA) where a student won a million quid but the bet was not paid because she was fronting for someone else. The bet was accepted, until it won.
The Gambling Commission, and even Tom Watson's proposals, are too hung up on addiction and forget about consumer (punter) protection.
It's tricky. He either wrote the wrong horse at the right time or the right horse at the wrong time. He says the former but that effectively gives him a free option on two races. BetFred really had no alternative but to do as they did otherwise everyone would be trying it on.
I'm sure it was a genuine mistake but bf can't afford to treat it like that, sadly for the guy, who still made twenty-odd grand out of it.
Indeed, and there are a lot of sharks who do try it on. Nonetheless, a bit of investment in staff -- or AI -- could have identified the ambiguity before it really mattered.
The problems are different on Betfair but the attitude is the same. Never mind that the market rules are ambiguous (say, as to when Theresa May resigns) as long as we get our cut.
Off topic but of philosophical interest. A punter has lost the thick end of 200 grand by getting the name of the horse wrong on the betting slip. The Guardian isn't taking sides, but should they have paid out anyway?
Absolutely not. He wrote the wrong name and didn't verify it. Of course it sucks for him, but the bookie has done nothing wrong here, it's entirely his own cock up. And the sum of money doesn't really change that.
Bit less here than meets the eye. It wasn't a spelling mistake, it was a real horse really running in another race. It looks a bit like post event rationalisation to me. something all punters are a little prone to.
Except for the claim he did raise it before the race with the shop staff. Betting shop staff these days are not trained like they used to be -- and are often just warm bodies to empty the FOBTs and lock the door. The last time I asked for an ante-post bet on the Derby, the staff had no idea what I was talking about. In this case, the shop should have got on the phone to head office to agree a course of action. I'd say there should be an ex-gratia payment on these grounds, even though by the rules, the name of the horse takes precedence over the race time.
The larger problem is this is the way betting shops have always worked. They take the slip and the money, but only look at it when the result is known, and then decide whether they want to accept it or not, and on what terms. If the bet loses, they don't look and keep the money. If it wins, well, maybe there is a get-out clause.
There is a similar issue in the Bet365 case (recently withdrawn so presumably settled out of court with an NDA) where a student won a million quid but the bet was not paid because she was fronting for someone else. The bet was accepted, until it won.
The Gambling Commission, and even Tom Watson's proposals, are too hung up on addiction and forget about consumer (punter) protection.
Winning punters seem simply not to exist in parliament's mind
According to Ipsos-Mori only 17% very likely to vote Conservative if Hunt were leader and only 19% if Boris were leader so poor compared to the 26% among those certain to vote (9/10) Conservative at present.
Only 6% of other party voters would switch if Boris became Party leader and just 3% if Hunt became leader so again no great groundswell of support there.
Ipsos Mori actually had 36% likely to vote Tory under Boris and 32% likely to vote Tory under Hunt so both significantly higher than the 26% currently voting Tory.
21% of current non Tory voters are likely to vote Tory under Boris and 14% under Hunt
MORI’s own summary of its poll finding: ”There is little evidence that either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt would make much difference to how likely people would be to consider voting Conservative.”
Believe the official report - not the Comical HYali spin!
Just read it
Ipsos Mori has 17% of 2017 Labour voters likely to vote Tory if Boris is Tory leader and 12% likely to vote Tory if Hunt is Tory leader (p36 and 38 of the tables)
Ipsos Mori also has 12% of 2017 LD voters likely to vote Tory if Boris or Hunt are Tory leader.
So in total 29% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party while only 15% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party.
With Hunt 14% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Hunt led Tories and only 11% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Hunt led Tories
What?????
17% of 2017 Lab voters + 12% of 2017 LD voters does not equal 29% of 2017 Lab or LD voters.
17% (A) + 12% (B) does not equal 29% (A+B)
Even just lookig at 2017 Labour voters only more of them are likely to vote for a Boris or Hunt led Tories thsn current Tories are unlikely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party or a Hunt led Tories
Just been searching on twitter for Northern Ireland backstop referendum tweets. There are a few. None of them before Portillo suggested it two weeks ago. None of them by Boris advisors. Most of them (at least 30) by HYUFD.
As I posted before and RCS will attest it was posted on this site a week ago but clearly you are too lazy to go back through old threads to find it, that is up to you.
Boris made clear yesterday No Deal was a million to one shot as he knows a FTA for GB is what he will do
@tgeducation Follow Follow @tgeducation More Speculation that Boris Johnston might offer to ditch the UK backstop, but retain the NI backstop, to cut a deal with the EU. The DUP would go apoplectic, but he might offer a NI referendum on this to outflank them. Odd times."
Someone from Boris's team must have been reading this board, because right back at the beginning of this process, I suggested a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There are only two problems with this excellent idea (of mine):
1. The DUP 2. The ERG "
All of this after Portillo posited the idea. And no Boris staff involved anywhere.
I can understand why you didn't actually want anyone to bother finding this.
Boris said No Deal was a million to one chance yesterday as that is precisely what he is going to do
And he will hold said referendum before October 31st as how (otherwise) do we leave on that date?
With a Tory majority he passes the Withdrawal Agreement by October 31st with the temporary Customs Union for GB removed.
Whether he holds a a referendum in NI on the backstop after that is up to him, it would be a good will gesture to show the DUP he was not completely ignoring them but as the polls show it would pass anyway but a referendum would not be needed to pass the Withdrawal Agreement once the Tories have a majority and Boris can ignore the DUP
Good will? It would completely shaft the DUP by showing how out of touch with public opinion in Northern Ireland they are.
I don't think these figures add up really - Tories only on 26% with Brexit Pty on 12%?
I don't follow that.
Surely the closer the Tories get to adopting No Deal as their policy, the closer the Tory figure plus the Brexit Party figure should be to the percentage supporting No Deal?
Per yesterday's poll, that's 28%, not 38%. Which would suggest the Tories have further to fall, if anything.
Boris supports Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st and voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3.
Farage and the Brexit Party reject the Withdrawal Agreement outright and want to go straight to No Deal WTO terms so that does not follow
The problem is that no one in the world except you believes there is going to be time for us to leave the EU with a deal by 31 October. Not even Boris Johnson.
He does.
Boris wins a majority by October 31st, then can pass the Withdrawal Agreement by October 31st too with the temporary Customs Union for GB May asked Barnier to impose removed.
No longer reliant on the DUP having won a Tory majority he could also hold a confirmatory referendum in NI on the backstop
Point of Order: even if he were to pass Meaningful Vote 4 by October 31, we would still require an extension. Simply, there's probably 3-4 weeks minimum to get all the ducks in a line (EU Parliament approval, etc.)
Not if it passes by the beginning of October and even if it only passes by 31st October the British side will have voted for Brexit and to Withdraw from the EU
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
All those people you mentioned went on to win landslides, right?
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Just one local by-election today. It's in Mansfield where a Lab councillor has resigned following election as executive Mayor. Expect a close fight with the Mansfield Independent.
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what makes you so convinced that No Deal ineluctably leads to economic apocalypse?
Not economic apocalypse (except in Northern Ireland), but the media full every day for a long period of farmers going bust, fishing fleets being mothballed, car manufacturers laying off staff or withdrawing from the UK altogether, supplies being held up at ports, produce rotting, the pound collapsing, lorries held up on the approach to Dover, British ex-pats being left without medical cover, etc etc etc.
What this will all mean in macro-economic terms is very hard indeed to say. I don't really think traditional economic models are any use at all here - no advanced Western economy has ever imposed wide-ranging economic sanctions on itself before - but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the pound will head down to the range $1 to $1.10 and the overall hit to UK GDP will be comparable to the 2008/9 crisis, and the unemployment effect much worse than 2008/9.
I am less pessimistic, but I still think it would have fairly negative effects. The real risk for the UK is that a negative cycle kicks off where an external shock - No Deal Brexit - kicks off an excessively rapid rebalancing of the UK economy, and the household savings rate swings from below equilibrium to above.
In other words, I worry about the UK economy becoming Spain 2010-2013.
A No Deal Brexit will be happening this autumn just as the dials on the world economy are flashing red all over the place. Look at government bonds. Inversion. People are paying Portugal to store their money for several years!
PMIs look horrible. Bond yields look horrible. Not a particularly auspicious time to kick off No Deal Brexit.
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Didn't Cameron have less frontbench experience than Boris?
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what makes you so convinced that No Deal ineluctably leads to economic apocalypse?
Not economic apocalypse (except in Northern Ireland), but the media full every day for a long period of farmers going bust, fishing fleets being mothballed, car manufacturers laying off staff or withdrawing from the UK altogether, supplies being held up at ports, produce rotting, the pound collapsing, lorries held up on the approach to Dover, British ex-pats being left without medical cover, etc etc etc.
What this will all mean in macro-economic terms is very hard indeed to say. I don't really think traditional economic models are any use at all here - no advanced Western economy has ever imposed wide-ranging economic sanctions on itself before - but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the pound will head down to the range $1 to $1.10 and the overall hit to UK GDP will be comparable to the 2008/9 crisis, and the unemployment effect much worse than 2008/9.
I am less pessimistic, but I still think it would have fairly negative effects. The real risk for the UK is that a negative cycle kicks off where an external shock - No Deal Brexit - kicks off an excessively rapid rebalancing of the UK economy, and the household savings rate swings from below equilibrium to above.
In other words, I worry about the UK economy becoming Spain 2010-2013.
A No Deal Brexit will be happening this autumn just as the dials on the world economy are flashing red all over the place. Look at government bonds. Inversion. People are paying Portugal to store their money for several years!
PMIs look horrible. Bond yields look horrible. Not a particularly auspicious time to kick off No Deal Brexit.
I'm pretty sure we are about to enter the worst period for the UK economy since the IMF were called.
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
All those people you mentioned went on to win landslides, right?
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Didn't Cameron have less frontbench experience than Boris?
That is probably true. Much as I liked him and voted for him as leader, I am not sure he will go down in history as best PM. He will look amazing when compared to Bozo though!
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what makes you so convinced that No Deal ineluctably leads to economic apocalypse?
Not economic apocalypse (except in Northern Ireland), but the media full every day for a long period of farmers going bust, fishing fleets being mothballed, car manufacturers laying off staff or withdrawing from the UK altogether, supplies being held up at ports, produce rotting, the pound collapsing, lorries held up on the approach to Dover, British ex-pats being left without medical cover, etc etc etc.
What this will all mean in macro-economic terms is very hard indeed to say. I don't really think traditional economic models are any use at all here - no advanced Western economy has ever imposed wide-ranging economic sanctions on itself before - but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the pound will head down to the range $1 to $1.10 and the overall hit to UK GDP will be comparable to the 2008/9 crisis, and the unemployment effect much worse than 2008/9.
I am less pessimistic, but I still think it would have fairly negative effects. The real risk for the UK is that a negative cycle kicks off where an external shock - No Deal Brexit - kicks off an excessively rapid rebalancing of the UK economy, and the household savings rate swings from below equilibrium to above.
In other words, I worry about the UK economy becoming Spain 2010-2013.
A No Deal Brexit will be happening this autumn just as the dials on the world economy are flashing red all over the place. Look at government bonds. Inversion. People are paying Portugal to store their money for several years!
PMIs look horrible. Bond yields look horrible. Not a particularly auspicious time to kick off No Deal Brexit.
Except it won't be No Deal, Boris will deliver the Brexit you voted for and you can admire from California the fantastic FTA for GB with the EU Boris moves towards after he wins an overall majority and the Withdrawal Agreement passes by October 31st
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
Mayor of London isn't a vanity position. Boris did a decent job. Khan is doing ok, but he isn't making it look easy.
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
Mayor of London isn't a vanity position. Boris did a decent job. Khan is doing ok, but he isn't making it look easy.
If it's a vanity position, who exactly do I blame for continually raising my tube fares?
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
Mayor of London isn't a vanity position. Boris did a decent job. Khan is doing ok, but he isn't making it look easy.
Did he? Are you able to point to any of his achievements? Please I would love to know. I keep asking HYUFD but he just keeps parroting optimistic predictions about what Boris will do when he is PM.
It is like someone being recommended for a job, but their only recommendation is that they are very good at winning interviews, and no one can point to anything of substance. I accept that it is highly unlikely I will vote for him (generally put off by liars) but I am one of those rare people that has a vote. It is either Hunt or abstention as choices for me at the moment. As a long term Conservative Party member I would love to be persuaded that Boris is not as hopeless as I think.
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
Mayor of London isn't a vanity position. Boris did a decent job. Khan is doing ok, but he isn't making it look easy.
If it's a vanity position, who exactly do I blame for continually raising my tube fares?
Hmm, good question. The unions? You could blame the rest of the population who are less willing to subsidise your travel needs perhaps?
According to Ipsos-Mori only 17% very likely to vote Conservative if Hunt were leader and only 19% if Boris were leader so poor compared to the 26% among those certain to vote (9/10) Conservative at present.
Only 6% of other party voters would switch if Boris became Party leader and just 3% if Hunt became leader so again no great groundswell of support there.
Ipsos Mori actually had 36% likely to vote Tory under Boris and 32% likely to vote Tory under Hunt so both significantly higher than the 26% currently voting Tory.
21% of current non Tory voters are likely to vote Tory under Boris and 14% under Hunt
MORI’s own summary of its poll finding: ”There is little evidence that either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt would make much difference to how likely people would be to consider voting Conservative.”
Believe the official report - not the Comical HYali spin!
Just read it
Ipsos Mori has 17% of 2017 Labour voters likely to vote Tory if Boris is Tory leader and 12% likely to vote Tory if Hunt is Tory leader (p36 and 38 of the tables)
Ipsos Mori also has 12% of 2017 LD voters likely to vote Tory if Boris or Hunt are Tory leader.
So in total 29% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party while only 15% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party.
With Hunt 14% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Hunt led Tories and only 11% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Hunt led Tories
I have to expose this complete abuse of maths, even knowing that MikeL has allready called it out.
One recent poll has the LDs on 18% (and that is after don't knows have been excluded). 12% of 18% is 2.88%
12% of LD voters is nowhere near 12% of voters!
This is something a GCSE maths pupil should be getting right.
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Didn't Cameron have less frontbench experience than Boris?
That is probably true. Much as I liked him and voted for him as leader, I am not sure he will go down in history as best PM. He will look amazing when compared to Bozo though!
According to Ipsos-Mori only 17% very likely to vote Conservative if Hunt were leader and only 19% if Boris were leader so poor compared to the 26% among those certain to vote (9/10) Conservative at present.
Only 6% of other party voters would switch if Boris became Party leader and just 3% if Hunt became leader so again no great groundswell of support there.
Ipsos Mori actually had 36% likely to vote Tory under Boris and 32% likely to vote Tory under Hunt so both significantly higher than the 26% currently voting Tory.
21% of current non Tory voters are likely to vote Tory under Boris and 14% under Hunt
MORI’s own summary of its poll finding: ”There is little evidence that either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt would make much difference to how likely people would be to consider voting Conservative.”
Believe the official report - not the Comical HYali spin!
Just read it
Ipsos Mori has 17% of 2017 Labour voters likely to vote Tory if Boris is Tory leader and 12% likely to vote Tory if Hunt is Tory leader (p36 and 38 of the tables)
Ipsos Mori also has 12% of 2017 LD voters likely to vote Tory if Boris or Hunt are Tory leader.
So in total 29% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party while only 15% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party.
With Hunt 14% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Hunt led Tories and only 11% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Hunt led Tories
I have to expose this complete abuse of maths, even knowing that MikeL has allready called it out.
One recent poll has the LDs on 18% (and that is after don't knows have been excluded). 12% of 18% is 2.88%
12% of LD voters is nowhere near 12% of voters!
This is something a GCSE maths pupil should be getting right.
HYUFD is a cheerleader for a man that is economical with all truth. Mathematics is not immune
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
Mayor of London isn't a vanity position. Boris did a decent job. Khan is doing ok, but he isn't making it look easy.
Did he? Are you able to point to any of his achievements? Please I would love to know. I keep asking HYUFD but he just keeps parroting optimistic predictions about what Boris will do when he is PM.
It is like someone being recommended for a job, but their only recommendation is that they are very good at winning interviews, and no one can point to anything of substance. I accept that it is highly unlikely I will vote for him (generally put off by liars) but I am one of those rare people that has a vote. It is either Hunt or abstention as choices for me at the moment. As a long term Conservative Party member I would love to be persuaded that Boris is not as hopeless as I think.
Achievements: London functioned well, and in small ways progressed. I'd not recommend Boris, but I may well vote for him.
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Didn't Cameron have less frontbench experience than Boris?
That is probably true. Much as I liked him and voted for him as leader, I am not sure he will go down in history as best PM. He will look amazing when compared to Bozo though!
Damned by faint praise.
Indeed. A man of promise who turned out to be somewhat hopeless due to betting the country's economic future on the flip of a coin and it coming up tails instead of heads.
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
Mayor of London isn't a vanity position. Boris did a decent job. Khan is doing ok, but he isn't making it look easy.
Did he? Are you able to point to any of his achievements? Please I would love to know. I keep asking HYUFD but he just keeps parroting optimistic predictions about what Boris will do when he is PM.
It is like someone being recommended for a job, but their only recommendation is that they are very good at winning interviews, and no one can point to anything of substance. I accept that it is highly unlikely I will vote for him (generally put off by liars) but I am one of those rare people that has a vote. It is either Hunt or abstention as choices for me at the moment. As a long term Conservative Party member I would love to be persuaded that Boris is not as hopeless as I think.
Achievements: London functioned well, and in small ways progressed. I'd not recommend Boris, but I may well vote for him.
Specifics please? We are in the realms of faint praise again here, and how do we know those small progressions were down to his leadership? You could claim the same of Red Ken, and no one is yet proposing Livingstone as PM. As members of the Conservative Party we are be asked (very undemocratically) to assess whether someone can take on one of the toughest jobs in the country, if not the world at a time of crisis.
Today's MORI gives an interesting result with Flavible:
Con 245, Lab 239, LD 90, SNP 51 (BRX 1)
Suddenly the battle for Con is with LD - with a whole host of incredibly tight Con / LD marginals.
LD win a swathe of seats from Central London, through South West London and into Surrey (including Raab) . Con just hold on in several Surrey seats (including Hunt) by 1% to 2%.
So if he manages to see off the Brexit Party, Boris is going to have to tack very quickly to shore up Con position vs LD - without letting BRX then rise again. A high wire act!
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
By anybody with an interest in foreign affairs, Boris is remembered for achieving a united international response to the Salisbury chemical weapon attack.
Today's MORI gives an interesting result with Flavible:
Con 245, Lab 239, LD 90, SNP 51 (BRX 1)
Suddenly the battle for Con is with LD - with a whole host of incredibly tight Con / LD marginals.
LD win a swathe of seats from Central London, through South West London and into Surrey (including Raab) . Con just hold on in several Surrey seats (including Hunt) by 1% to 2%.
So if he manages to see off the Brexit Party, Boris is going to have to tack very quickly to shore up Con position vs LD - without letting BRX then rise again. A high wire act!
Whilst simultaneously having to cover up the fact that he doesn't know how to run a piss up in a brewery.
12% for the Brexit party? That's seriously out of line with most other recent polls. That doesn't mean it's wrong but it does mean that it needs to be treated with care.
To be fair to Corbyn he has 4% more satisfied with him than Foot, 1% more satisfied with him than was the case with IDS and Hague had only 2% more satisfied with him than Corbyn, even if Corbyn has more dissatisfied with him than Foot, IDS and Hague and Ed Miliband
Interestingly I think only IDS and Corbyn had equal or less frontbench experience to Bozo when they assumed the role
Boris was Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London for 8 years, a bigger executive position than running some countries
Don't be ridiculous Mayor of London is a vanity position. Well suited to Boris Johnson. How long was he Foreign Sec for again? What is he most remembered for?
Mayor of London isn't a vanity position. Boris did a decent job. Khan is doing ok, but he isn't making it look easy.
Did he? Are you able to point to any of his achievements? Please I would love to know. I keep asking HYUFD but he just keeps parroting optimistic predictions about what Boris will do when he is PM.
It is like someone being recommended for a job, but their only recommendation is that they are very good at winning interviews, and no one can point to anything of substance. I accept that it is highly unlikely I will vote for him (generally put off by liars) but I am one of those rare people that has a vote. It is either Hunt or abstention as choices for me at the moment. As a long term Conservative Party member I would love to be persuaded that Boris is not as hopeless as I think.
Achievements: London functioned well, and in small ways progressed. I'd not recommend Boris, but I may well vote for him.
Specifics please? We are in the realms of faint praise again here, and how do we know those small progressions were down to his leadership? You could claim the same of Red Ken, and no one is yet proposing Livingstone as PM. As members of the Conservative Party we are be asked (very undemocratically) to assess whether someone can take on one of the toughest jobs in the country, if not the world at a time of crisis.
I would claim the same of Red Ken.
Mayor of London is a big job - doing it well is something in itself. Ken, Boris, and (we'll see) Sadiq have all done it well.
For Boris all this says is that he has a degree of competence. I don't really go beyond that. (Progress? Cycling stuff, environmental stuff, etc - taxi-driver stuff)
Comments
wrap.warwick.ac.uk/106313/1/WRAP-twerp-1170-Fetzer.pdf
Brexit delenda est.
Not impossible, but hardly nailed on.
Ipsos Mori has 17% of 2017 Labour voters likely to vote Tory if Boris is Tory leader and 12% likely to vote Tory if Hunt is Tory leader (p36 and 38 of the tables)
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/little-choose-between-hunt-and-johnson-terms-public-opinion
In other words, I worry about the UK economy becoming Spain 2010-2013.
The larger problem is this is the way betting shops have always worked. They take the slip and the money, but only look at it when the result is known, and then decide whether they want to accept it or not, and on what terms. If the bet loses, they don't look and keep the money. If it wins, well, maybe there is a get-out clause.
There is a similar issue in the Bet365 case (recently withdrawn so presumably settled out of court with an NDA) where a student won a million quid but the bet was not paid because she was fronting for someone else. The bet was accepted, until it won.
The Gambling Commission, and even Tom Watson's proposals, are too hung up on addiction and forget about consumer (punter) protection.
So in total 29% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party while only 15% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Boris led Tory Party.
With Hunt 14% of 2017 Labour or LD voters are likely to vote for a Hunt led Tories and only 11% of current Tory voters are unlikely to vote for a Hunt led Tories
"Tony Gallagher
@tgeducation
Follow Follow @tgeducation
More
Speculation that Boris Johnston might offer to ditch the UK backstop, but retain the NI backstop, to cut a deal with the EU. The DUP would go apoplectic, but he might offer a NI referendum on this to outflank them. Odd times."
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2364795/#Comment_2364795
HYUFD said "Genius move if true.
Enables a FTA for GB and gets the ERG on board and removes the temporary CU for GB true but ensures NI voters likely back the backstop so the DUP can't blame him and the way is clear for the WA to get through even on the current Commons or with a Tory majority after a snap general election"
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2364802/#Comment_2364802
RCS1000 said "Wow.
Someone from Boris's team must have been reading this board, because right back at the beginning of this process, I suggested a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There are only two problems with this excellent idea (of mine):
1. The DUP
2. The ERG "
All of this after Portillo posited the idea. And no Boris staff involved anywhere.
I can understand why you didn't actually want anyone to bother finding this.
I'm sure it was a genuine mistake but bf can't afford to treat it like that, sadly for the guy, who still made twenty-odd grand out of it.
In 2008/9, the UK was still a creditor to the world. We're now a substantial debtor. We've gone from them owing us money, to us owing them.
Our household savings rate is in a worse position now than then.
And our current account, despite heading in a positive direction in 2017 has recently worsened badly again.
So net -30% for Hunt and -23% for Johnson.
Does a net 7% gap amount to "much difference"? Discuss.
Whether he holds a a referendum in NI on the backstop after that is up to him, it would be a good will gesture to show the DUP he was not completely ignoring them but as the polls show it would pass anyway but a referendum would not be needed to pass the Withdrawal Agreement once the Tories have a majority and Boris can ignore the DUP
17% of 2017 Lab voters + 12% of 2017 LD voters does not equal 29% of 2017 Lab or LD voters.
17% (A) + 12% (B) does not equal 29% (A+B)
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1144263836985417729
And, in those days we did the settling ourselves in our heads. Not that difficult to have a quick look I would have thought.
Where necessary, in extreme circumstances, we will organize some kind of disciplinary procedure which is staffed by people minded not to do anything, especially if the alleged offender is in a marginal seat or is a prominent supporter of the Leader.
The problems are different on Betfair but the attitude is the same. Never mind that the market rules are ambiguous (say, as to when Theresa May resigns) as long as we get our cut.
Surely Corbyn would never cross a picket line?
Good luck Labour. You have a complete albatross as leader. Poison on the doorsteps.
But he has his integrity and he won last time.
So it's all ok.
Unless Boris and his Death Cult can be stopped.
Can't think why.
It is like someone being recommended for a job, but their only recommendation is that they are very good at winning interviews, and no one can point to anything of substance. I accept that it is highly unlikely I will vote for him (generally put off by liars) but I am one of those rare people that has a vote. It is either Hunt or abstention as choices for me at the moment. As a long term Conservative Party member I would love to be persuaded that Boris is not as hopeless as I think.
One recent poll has the LDs on 18% (and that is after don't knows have been excluded).
12% of 18% is 2.88%
12% of LD voters is nowhere near 12% of voters!
This is something a GCSE maths pupil should be getting right.
I'd not recommend Boris, but I may well vote for him.
Con 245, Lab 239, LD 90, SNP 51 (BRX 1)
Suddenly the battle for Con is with LD - with a whole host of incredibly tight Con / LD marginals.
LD win a swathe of seats from Central London, through South West London and into Surrey (including Raab) . Con just hold on in several Surrey seats (including Hunt) by 1% to 2%.
So if he manages to see off the Brexit Party, Boris is going to have to tack very quickly to shore up Con position vs LD - without letting BRX then rise again. A high wire act!
Mayor of London is a big job - doing it well is something in itself. Ken, Boris, and (we'll see) Sadiq have all done it well.
For Boris all this says is that he has a degree of competence. I don't really go beyond that. (Progress? Cycling stuff, environmental stuff, etc - taxi-driver stuff)
“I ask you: Do you want total Brexit? If necessary, do you want a Brexit more total and radical than anything that we can even yet imagine?”