This is pretty good for Sanders, who'd been around 12-13% in the last couple of polls, but it's terrible for Biden who's now 11 points adrift of Warren.
And Harris would likely get no delegates on this poll. She'd be dead and buried.
On the basis of this, I could see Buttigieg ending up the standard-bearer for the not-liberals.
Any of the lacklustre defeated Democrat candidates of the last 35 years could win this election (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale). Yet they have literally no one even of that calibre.
Really?
Kerry and Gore were snorefests. They were the Bidens of their time.
And I don't remember Kerry being any more impressive in Obama's cabinet than Warren. In fact, while I'm no Warren fan, she has a pretty impressive record.
Plus, Buttigieg has something. He's scary smart, scary ariculate. Plus, he manages to be a religious veteran, who's also gay. I think he's worth a flutter here.
Oh yeah Kerry and Gore were certainly snorefests but could bore to victory in this one. I think Warren might just get up the nose of a lot of people who might vote Democrat but won't vote for her. I agree Buttigieg is probably the best the Dems have got of the current lot.
I know a few Leave voters who have changed their minds.
But, yes, you’re right about leaders of the Leave campaign.
In the event of a No Deal Brexit, there would be two groups of Leavers who would change their minds very quickly.
1) Livestock farmers - when they find that WTO tariffs destroy their business
2) Fishermen - who will find out that when OUR govt sold the fishing rights, the EU had nothing to do with it. Those rights will stay sold and our fishermen will lose their EU markets.
And then there are our other businesses which are mostly unprepared for No Deal because they were assured it was a million to one event.
Interesting times ahead.
on your point 1) there is no such thing as WTO tariffs. Each country or customs block lodges there tariff schedules at the WTO. So can you explain what you mean here?
2) what do you mean by sold the fishing rights?
2) was indeed confusing. How are the rights sold if there is no deal?
The UK has sold fishing quotas to fishermen, foreign* and domestic.
In the event of "No Deal" there will need to be a new system for regulating this, and the government will, of course, be on the hook to those whom it sold previous fishing rights.
* Foreign not just meaning Spanish. Some UK derived fishing quotas have been sold to Canadian fishermen, and probably US ones too
This is pretty good for Sanders, who'd been around 12-13% in the last couple of polls, but it's terrible for Biden who's now 11 points adrift of Warren.
And Harris would likely get no delegates on this poll. She'd be dead and buried.
On the basis of this, I could see Buttigieg ending up the standard-bearer for the not-liberals.
Any of the lacklustre defeated Democrat candidates of the last 35 years could win this election (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale). Yet they have literally no one even of that calibre.
No they wouldn't, Trump would beat all of those bores just as he beat Hillary.
Bill Clinton might have beaten Trump, as might Obama but like him or loathe him Trump is probably the most charismatic candidate the GOP have had since Reagan and the Democrats will need someone special to beat him
They really won't. All they need is someone not obviously senile.
She was alienating a ton by being pointlessly dismissive. She needs tactical votes from both sides, which traditionally the LibDems have best acquired by seeming moderate and reasonable. Offhand rejection is not a good look for that, though it can be popular with partisan.
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
No,
The USA is great if you are white and have money. For everyone else it is long hours, little job security and poor healthcare.
It might be your dream for the kids, but I want better for mine. We have it already and we are throwing it away.
But as a state of the union, it would be up to Britain (or whatever collection of units we hypothetically joined up as) to decide on much of the social policy. Minimum wage and working hour legislation can be set at a state level. States can have their own healthcare systems. And it would have greater fiscal firepower to throw at its problems.
I intend the above contentions as mere statements of fact, just as you do yours, so since they clash I doubt we'd reach agreement on them. (For example, you're correct that the average US full-time worker works longer than in the UK, 47 vs 43 hours, and the federal US minimum wage is less than the UK one. I'm not suggesting that your claims about UK/US differences are wrong, rather that the US figures are heterogeneous between states and the UK electorate would likely vote to retain levels in line with their historical preferences.)
But just for the sake of argument, let's say that every single one of the objections in your response happened to be ticked off - our hypothetical USA isn't just richer per capita but also less unequal, has better healthcare even for the poor, has more pleasant working hours...
Then at what point do you get up in arms that we have not yet joined the USA? Is your preference based very strongly on the social model at play? I suspect there's a status quo effect at play, whereby being out of it, there's less drive to want to enter into it.
I know a few Leave voters who have changed their minds.
But, yes, you’re right about leaders of the Leave campaign.
In the event of a No Deal Brexit, there would be two groups of Leavers who would change their minds very quickly.
1) Livestock farmers - when they find that WTO tariffs destroy their business
2) Fishermen - who will find out that when OUR govt sold the fishing rights, the EU had nothing to do with it. Those rights will stay sold and our fishermen will lose their EU markets.
And then there are our other businesses which are mostly unprepared for No Deal because they were assured it was a million to one event.
Interesting times ahead.
on your point 1) there is no such thing as WTO tariffs. Each country or customs block lodges there tariff schedules at the WTO. So can you explain what you mean here?
2) what do you mean by sold the fishing rights?
2) was indeed confusing. How are the rights sold if there is no deal?
The UK has sold fishing quotas to fishermen, foreign* and domestic.
In the event of "No Deal" there will need to be a new system for regulating this, and the government will, of course, be on the hook to those whom it sold previous fishing rights.
* Foreign not just meaning Spanish. Some UK derived fishing quotas have been sold to Canadian fishermen, and probably US ones too
But the term is important. Have they sold them in perpetuity or are they selling for a fixed term?
Warren's surge is interesting, she can be backed at 11-4 (3.75) with Hills which beats Betfair right now. She can also be laid at 7.2 for the presidency on Betfair, which I've also done as I have some generic Democrat bets. That effectively gives 1.92 (Or ~ even money after Betfair's rake) on Warren/Trump the pair if she gets the nomination.
I think she has a real chance but I think there is a real chance she will be eaten alive by Trump. Hence I've moved my book to take profits on her nomination rather than too much to do with the presidency.
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
No,
The USA is great if you are white and have money. For everyone else it is long hours, little job security and poor healthcare.
It might be your dream for the kids, but I want better for mine. We have it already and we are throwing it away.
But as a state of the union, it would be up to Britain (or whatever collection of units we hypothetically joined up as) to decide on much of the social policy. Minimum wage and working hour legislation can be set at a state level. States can have their own healthcare systems. And it would have greater fiscal firepower to throw at its problems.
I intend the above contentions as mere statements of fact, just as you do yours, so since they clash I doubt we'd reach agreement on them. (For example, you're correct that the average US full-time worker works longer than in the UK, 47 vs 43 hours, and the federal US minimum wage is less than the UK one. I'm not suggesting that your claims about UK/US differences are wrong, rather that the US figures are heterogeneous between states and the UK electorate would likely vote to retain levels in line with their historical preferences.)
But just for the sake of argument, let's say that every single one of the objections in your response happened to be ticked off - our hypothetical USA isn't just richer per capita but also less unequal, has better healthcare even for the poor, has more pleasant working hours...
Then at what point do you get up in arms that we have not yet joined the USA? Is your preference based very strongly on the social model at play? I suspect there's a status quo effect at play, whereby being out of it, there's less drive to want to enter into it.
There can be little doubt that the UK joining the US would move America far more into looking like the rest of the developed world. There may even be a majority to introduce universal health care.
This is pretty good for Sanders, who'd been around 12-13% in the last couple of polls, but it's terrible for Biden who's now 11 points adrift of Warren.
And Harris would likely get no delegates on this poll. She'd be dead and buried.
On the basis of this, I could see Buttigieg ending up the standard-bearer for the not-liberals.
Any of the lacklustre defeated Democrat candidates of the last 35 years could win this election (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale). Yet they have literally no one even of that calibre.
No they wouldn't, Trump would beat all of those bores just as he beat Hillary.
Bill Clinton might have beaten Trump, as might Obama but like him or loathe him Trump is probably the most charismatic candidate the GOP have had since Reagan and the Democrats will need someone special to beat him
They really won't. All they need is someone not obviously senile.
They will otherwise they will make the same mistake they did with Dubya in 2004, assume Trump is a moron and they are entitled to win the election and ignore his connection with voters in Middle America
Were we to do so, it is likely that our voting power inside USA would see their worst excesses curbed. The path to a Republican win in the House would be near insurmountable. All but the mildest Centrist President too. Gun laws are set at State level and lower, though rendered largely ineffectual by neighbouring States, so we wouldn't get that. Death penalty too. Wisconsin has never executed anybody.
There'd still be a federal death penalty, of course, though rarely used. Until fairly recently when views on the barbarity of capital punishment seem to have hardened, this would not have formed a great impediment to British voters!
I think the relative positions of the US parties would adjust to the new electoral arithmetic rather than remain static. As you say, Brits would form a very substantial voting bloc and significantly sway many areas of policy.
I write from the Devil's Advocate position, but it does surprise me - particularly given the number and wealth of Anglo-American elite who swan back and forth across the Atlantic, the commonality of language and history, and the quantity of US media we consume - that there isn't at least a fringe Atlantic Unionist movement in the UK. I'd have thought there'd be some pretty deep pockets willing to fund it, but nope.
Were we to do so, it is likely that our voting power inside USA would see their worst excesses curbed. The path to a Republican win in the House would be near insurmountable. All but the mildest Centrist President too. Gun laws are set at State level and lower, though rendered largely ineffectual by neighbouring States, so we wouldn't get that. Death penalty too. Wisconsin has never executed anybody.
There'd still be a federal death penalty, of course, though rarely used. Until fairly recently when views on the barbarity of capital punishment seem to have hardened, this would not have formed a great impediment to British voters!
I think the relative positions of the US parties would adjust to the new electoral arithmetic rather than remain static. As you say, Brits would form a very substantial voting bloc and significantly sway many areas of policy.
I write from the Devil's Advocate position, but it does surprise me - particularly given the number and wealth of Anglo-American elite who swan back and forth across the Atlantic, the commonality of language and history, and the quantity of US media we consume - that there isn't at least a fringe Atlantic Unionist movement in the UK. I'd have thought there'd be some pretty deep pockets willing to fund it, but nope.
Yeah. I'm playing a bit of Devil's Advocate too. I do wonder if the likes of John Bolton would be better being careful what they wished for though!
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
You're mixing up relative and absolute poverty. Your first statement that "Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer" is not true on an absolute basis, because countries outside the US can have non-negative real-terms growth per capita. You may have been referring to relative poverty.
This is pretty good for Sanders, who'd been around 12-13% in the last couple of polls, but it's terrible for Biden who's now 11 points adrift of Warren.
And Harris would likely get no delegates on this poll. She'd be dead and buried.
On the basis of this, I could see Buttigieg ending up the standard-bearer for the not-liberals.
Any of the lacklustre defeated Democrat candidates of the last 35 years could win this election (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale). Yet they have literally no one even of that calibre.
No they wouldn't, Trump would beat all of those bores just as he beat Hillary.
Bill Clinton might have beaten Trump, as might Obama but like him or loathe him Trump is probably the most charismatic candidate the GOP have had since Reagan and the Democrats will need someone special to beat him
They really won't. All they need is someone not obviously senile.
They will otherwise they will make the same mistake they did with Dubya in 2004, assume Trump is a moron and they are entitled to win the election and ignore his connection with voters in Middle America
What is it about a diminished mental state that you think voters are attracted to?
This is pretty good for Sanders, who'd been around 12-13% in the last couple of polls, but it's terrible for Biden who's now 11 points adrift of Warren.
And Harris would likely get no delegates on this poll. She'd be dead and buried.
On the basis of this, I could see Buttigieg ending up the standard-bearer for the not-liberals.
Any of the lacklustre defeated Democrat candidates of the last 35 years could win this election (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale). Yet they have literally no one even of that calibre.
No they wouldn't, Trump would beat all of those bores just as he beat Hillary.
Bill Clinton might have beaten Trump, as might Obama but like him or loathe him Trump is probably the most charismatic candidate the GOP have had since Reagan and the Democrats will need someone special to beat him
They really won't. All they need is someone not obviously senile.
They will otherwise they will make the same mistake they did with Dubya in 2004, assume Trump is a moron and they are entitled to win the election and ignore his connection with voters in Middle America
What is it about a diminished mental state that you think voters are attracted to?
George W Bush was not an idiot that is the point, he actually had a higher SAT score than Kerry and got about the same grades as Gore did at Harvard at Yale, however Democrats assumed he was an idiot mistakenly and arrogantly and paid the price.
Trump also is clearly sharp whether you like him or not
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
You're mixing up relative and absolute poverty. Your first statement that "Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer" is not true on an absolute basis, because countries outside the US can have non-negative real-terms growth per capita. You may have been referring to relative poverty.
Not poverty, but long-run GDP/capita relative to a counterfactual of not joining, and true if you accept the premises (1) the USA has a higher GDP/capita than the UK, (2) convergence implies higher growth rates for poorer states if they enter a larger, richer economic union (the first point verifiable, the second point resting on some economic theory so rather more contentious). Overall, a piece of unhelpfully worded rhetoric that's clearer if the grandchildren are taken to be "hypothetical future people who will be living in 50 years' time" rather than "flesh-and-blood creatures already in their third job"...
My present position is that, although I hate the thought of No Deal and the damage it will do, we may have to do it in order to finally prove that the country is poorer and worse off out of the EU than in it.
And all this horsesh*t about "taking back control", "blue passports" and "sovereignty" will turn out be nothing more than cover for English Nationalists and xenophobes.
And no Leavers will have the spine to say "Oh cr*p! We were wrong"
I've never been convinced this argument is as persuasive to the unconverted as those who make it think it is - and the frequent conclusion that those people who disagree with it must just be slow of learning is wrong.
"In some counterfactual scenario we would be richer" is simply insufficient to persuade most people that this counterfactual is preferable. It also needs to chime with other preferences. For example, although there are some environmental regulations that make y really is becoming more rich/less poor, and you are prepared to commit the UK to a political union to do so, then the logical answer is Atlanticist.
Now there are strong objections to that. We don't like their constitution or gun rights or capital punishment or military exploits or politicians or accents or basically, that's just not who we are, yet if these objections are essentially restatements of identity, do they "count"? The deepest-held and most derision-heaped objections to EU membership stem from a similar, visceral place.
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
Were we to do so, it is likely that our voting power inside USA would see their worst excesses curbed. The path to a Republican win in the House would be near insurmountable. All but the mildest Centrist President too. Gun laws are set at State level and lower, though rendered largely ineffectual by neighbouring States, so we wouldn't get that. Death penalty too. Wisconsin has never executed anybody.
The UK is nearly double the population of California, which has 55 EC votes, the most for any US state. So let us give the UK more than 55 EC votes no question.
If we assume the UK would have voted for every Democratic candidate from and including Bill Clinton (the UK likely would have voted for Reagan twice and Bush Snr in 1988 as it voted for Thatcher and Major in 1992) then had the UK been part of the Electoral College then Gore would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 5 EC votes and Kerry would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 35 EC votes.
However Trump may still have beaten Hillary as he beat her by 77 votes, depending on how many EC votes the UK got
Header is spot on. VONC will not carry. Johnson is safe from that.
The truth is that there are many MPs who want to stop Brexit but are more concerned with stopping Corbyn being PM.
This means that Brexit is unlikely to be stopped.
Who to blame? Corbyn for being Corbyn? Or those pretending that stopping Brexit is their priority?
The latter will say the former.
That is my point. If the Devil could stop Brexit, I'd support him. Then we can remove him.
Quite. And even though I'm no Corbynista if allowing him to be a caretaker PM for a short time is the only way to stop no deal then so be it.
What if he reneged on it, once installed?
I said that this afternoon and was labelled an idiot. Just so you know to be prepared...
Quite right. Once Corbyn and McDonnell are in numbers 10 and 11 they'll find a reason(s) not to give them up. Corbyn ignored a VONC by his MPs, he'll ignore anything designed to prise him from No 10. He's proved effective in seizing control of the Labour Party, he'll try the same with government, irrespective of the parliamentary arithmetic.
Corbyn is wholly untrustworthy. No way should he be allowed anywhere near No 10.
Fine. Has anyone got any other ideas to stop No Deal Brexit, any Brexit without Corbyn and about 50 of his flunkies ? And, please be brief !
No. I have assumed for a long time - since March, in fact when I wrote a header on this - that the ERG has won and there will be a No Deal exit.
I, on the other hand, assumed that our politicians were not insane enough to let a No Deal Brexit happen. I then came to the reluctant conclusion that they were insane enough (or enough of them were).
My present position is that, although I hate the thought of No Deal and the damage it will do, we may have to do it in order to finally prove that the country is poorer and worse off out of the EU than in it.
And all this horsesh*t about "taking back control", "blue passports" and "sovereignty" will turn out be nothing more than cover for English Nationalists and xenophobes.
And no Leavers will have the spine to say "Oh cr*p! We were wrong"
I write from the Devil's Advocate position, but it does surprise me - particularly given the number and wealth of Anglo-American elite who swan back and forth across the Atlantic, the commonality of language and history, and the quantity of US media we consume - that there isn't at least a fringe Atlantic Unionist movement in the UK. I'd have thought there'd be some pretty deep pockets willing to fund it, but nope.
That's pretty close to the position of Daniel Hannan, although he skirts around it.
This is pretty good for Sanders, who'd been around 12-13% in the last couple of polls, but it's terrible for Biden who's now 11 points adrift of Warren.
And Harris would likely get no delegates on this poll. She'd be dead and buried.
On the basis of this, I could see Buttigieg ending up the standard-bearer for the not-liberals.
Any of the lacklustre defeated Democrat candidates of the last 35 years could win this election (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale). Yet they have literally no one even of that calibre.
No they wouldn't, Trump would beat all of those bores just as he beat Hillary.
Bill Clinton might have beaten Trump, as might Obama but like him or loathe him Trump is probably the most charismatic candidate the GOP have had since Reagan and the Democrats will need someone special to beat him
They really won't. All they need is someone not obviously senile.
They will otherwise they will make the same mistake they did with Dubya in 2004, assume Trump is a moron and they are entitled to win the election and ignore his connection with voters in Middle America
What is it about a diminished mental state that you think voters are attracted to?
George W Bush was not an idiot that is the point, he actually had a higher SAT score than Kerry and got about the same grades as Gore did at Harvard at Yale, however Democrats assumed he was an idiot mistakenly and arrogantly and paid the price.
Trump also is clearly sharp whether you like him or not
I agree that Trump and George W Bush are intelligent people, who do not have diminished mental ability.
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
You're mixing up relative and absolute poverty. Your first statement that "Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer" is not true on an absolute basis, because countries outside the US can have non-negative real-terms growth per capita. You may have been referring to relative poverty.
Not poverty, but long-run GDP/capita relative to a counterfactual of not joining, and true if you accept the premises (1) the USA has a higher GDP/capita than the UK, (2) convergence implies higher growth rates for poorer states if they enter a larger, richer economic union (the first point verifiable, the second point resting on some economic theory so rather more contentious). Overall, a piece of unhelpfully worded rhetoric that's clearer if the grandchildren are taken to be "hypothetical future people who will be living in 50 years' time" rather than "flesh-and-blood creatures already in their third job"...
US states income levels converged for a long while, but have steadily diverged since the mid-1970s.
There's some good academic research available at the Fed on this, if you're interested.
This is pretty good for Sanders, who'd been around 12-13% in the last couple of polls, but it's terrible for Biden who's now 11 points adrift of Warren.
And Harris would likely get no delegates on this poll. She'd be dead and buried.
On the basis of this, I could see Buttigieg ending up the standard-bearer for the not-liberals.
Any of the lacklustre defeated Democrat candidates of the last 35 years could win this election (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale). Yet they have literally no one even of that calibre.
No they wouldn't, Trump would beat all of those bores just as he beat Hillary.
Bill Clinton might have beaten Trump, as might Obama but like him or loathe him Trump is probably the most charismatic candidate the GOP have had since Reagan and the Democrats will need someone special to beat him
They really won't. All they need is someone not obviously senile.
They will otherwise they will make the same mistake they did with Dubya in 2004, assume Trump is a moron and they are entitled to win the election and ignore his connection with voters in Middle America
What is it about a diminished mental state that you think voters are attracted to?
George W Bush was not an idiot that is the point, he actually had a higher SAT score than Kerry and got about the same grades as Gore did at Harvard at Yale, however Democrats assumed he was an idiot mistakenly and arrogantly and paid the price.
Trump also is clearly sharp whether you like him or not
I agree that Trump and George W Bush are intelligent people, who do not have diminished mental ability.
Why do you think I was talking about them?
As it was perceptions of them by Democrats I was talking about
I've never been convinced this argument is as persuasive to the unconverted as those who make it think it is - and the frequent conclusion that those people who disagree with it must just be slow of learning is wrong.
"In some counterfactual scenario we would be richer" is simply insufficient to persuade most people that this counterfactual is preferable. It also needs to chime with other preferences. For example, although there are some environmental regulations that make y really is becoming more rich/less poor, and you are prepared to commit the UK to a political union to do so, then the logical answer is Atlanticist.
Now there are strong objections to that. We don't like their constitution or gun rights or capital punishment or military exploits or politicians or accents or basically, that's just not who we are, yet if these objections are essentially restatements of identity, do they "count"? The deepest-held and most derision-heaped objections to EU membership stem from a similar, visceral place.
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
Were we to do so, it is likely that our voting power inside USA would see their worst excesses curbed. The path to a Republican win in the House would be near insurmountable. All but the mildest Centrist President too. Gun laws are set at State level and lower, though rendered largely ineffectual by neighbouring States, so we wouldn't get that. Death penalty too. Wisconsin has never executed anybody.
The UK is nearly double the population of California, which has 55 EC votes, the most for any US state. So let us give the UK more than 55 EC votes no question.
If we assume the UK would have voted for every Democratic candidate from and including Bill Clinton (the UK likely would have voted for Reagan twice and Bush Snr in 1988 as it voted for Thatcher and Major in 1992) then had the UK been part of the Electoral College then Gore would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 5 EC votes and Kerry would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 35 EC votes.
However Trump may still have beaten Hillary as he beat her by 77 votes, depending on how many EC votes the UK got
I think the UK would probably come in as three/four states: England, Wales, Scotland and (possibly) Northern Ireland.
This is pretty good for Sanders, who'd been around 12-13% in the last couple of polls, but it's terrible for Biden who's now 11 points adrift of Warren.
And Harris would likely get no delegates on this poll. She'd be dead and buried.
On the basis of this, I could see Buttigieg ending up the standard-bearer for the not-liberals.
Any of the lacklustre defeated Democrat candidates of the last 35 years could win this election (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale). Yet they have literally no one even of that calibre.
No they wouldn't, Trump would beat all of those bores just as he beat Hillary.
Bill Clinton might have beaten Trump, as might Obama but like him or loathe him Trump is probably the most charismatic candidate the GOP have had since Reagan and the Democrats will need someone special to beat him
They really won't. All they need is someone not obviously senile.
They will otherwise they will make the same mistake they did with Dubya in 2004, assume Trump is a moron and they are entitled to win the election and ignore his connection with voters in Middle America
What is it about a diminished mental state that you think voters are attracted to?
George W Bush was not an idiot that is the point, he actually had a higher SAT score than Kerry and got about the same grades as Gore did at Harvard at Yale, however Democrats assumed he was an idiot mistakenly and arrogantly and paid the price.
Trump also is clearly sharp whether you like him or not
I agree that Trump and George W Bush are intelligent people, who do not have diminished mental ability.
Why do you think I was talking about them?
As it was perceptions of them by Democrats I was talking about
My original comment was "All they need is someone not obviously senile.", which was obviously referring to the Democrats. I'm struggling with why you'd want to talk about Trump and Bush's intelligence.
My present position is that, although I hate the thought of No Deal and the damage it will do, we may have to do it in order to finally prove that the country is poorer and worse off out of the EU than in it.
And all this horsesh*t about "taking back control", "blue passports" and "sovereignty" will turn out be nothing more than cover for English Nationalists and xenophobes.
"In some counterfactual scenario we would be richer" is simply insufficient to persuade most people that this counterfactual is preferable. It also needs to chime with other preferences. For example, although there are some environmental regulations that make us better off (for example, by addressing negative externalities of pollution) there are others that, on net, ebate look frankly trivial. If your priority really is becoming more rich/less poor, and you are prepared to commit the UK to a political union to do so, then the logical answer is Atlanticist.
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
Were we to do so, it is likely that our voting power inside USA would see their worst excesses curbed. The path to a Republican win in the House would be near insurmountable. All but the mildest Centrist President too. Gun laws are set at State level and lower, though rendered largely ineffectual by neighbouring States, so we wouldn't get that. Death penalty too. Wisconsin has never executed anybody.
The UK is nearly double the population of California, which has 55 EC votes the most for any US state. So let us give the UK around 100 EC votes.
If we assume the UK would have voted for every Democratic candidate since Bill Clinton (the UK likely would have voted for Reagan twice and Bush Snr in 1988 as it voted for Thatcher and Major in 1992) then had the UK been part of the Electoral College then Gore would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 3 EC votes and Kerry would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 36 EC votes.
However Trump may still have beaten Hillary as he beat her
Don’t forget the House of Representatives is capped to 435 members. The EC with the state of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be 540 strong, with GB&NI getting around 80 EVs.
Also who’s going to tell Brenda she’s going onto JSA as the US Constitution requires states to have “a Republican Form of Government”?
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
You're mixing up relative and absolute poverty. Your first statement that "Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer" is not true on an absolute basis, because countries outside the US can have non-negative real-terms growth per capita. You may have been referring to relative poverty.
Not poverty, but long-run GDP/capita relative to a counterfactual of not joining, and true if you accept the premises (1) the USA has a higher GDP/capita than the UK, (2) convergence implies higher growth rates for poorer states if they enter a larger, richer economic union (the first point verifiable, the second point resting on some economic theory so rather more contentious). Overall, a piece of unhelpfully worded rhetoric that's clearer if the grandchildren are taken to be "hypothetical future people who will be living in 50 years' time" rather than "flesh-and-blood creatures already in their third job"...
US states income levels converged for a long while, but have steadily diverged since the mid-1970s.
There's some good academic research available at the Fed on this, if you're interested.
Would be thanks, any pointers?
I have some (dated, now!) degree notes somewhere for a module about economics of European integration which was pretty interesting.
Yang's presidential price on predictit there is absolutely batahot insane. Even with their mad rake it's probably worth a max sell if you're able to do so (I've laid him out on Betfair)
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
You're mixing up relative and absolute poverty. Your first statement that "Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer" is not true on an absolute basis, because countries outside the US can have non-negative real-terms growth per capita. You may have been referring to relative poverty.
Not poverty, but long-run GDP/capita relative to a counterfactual of not joining, and true if you accept the premises (1) the USA has a higher GDP/capita than the UK, (2) convergence implies higher growth rates for poorer states if they enter a larger, richer economic union (the first point verifiable, the second point resting on some economic theory so rather more contentious). Overall, a piece of unhelpfully worded rhetoric that's clearer if the grandchildren are taken to be "hypothetical future people who will be living in 50 years' time" rather than "flesh-and-blood creatures already in their third job"...
US states income levels converged for a long while, but have steadily diverged since the mid-1970s.
There's some good academic research available at the Fed on this, if you're interested.
Would be thanks, any pointers?
I have some (dated, now!) degree notes somewhere for a module about economics of European integration which was pretty interesting.
Cheers, I was looking to see if there was a paper on it too - this one by Ganong and Shoag blames house prices and increased regulation of the housing supply.
The past thirty years have seen a dramatic decline in the rate of income convergence across states and in population flows to wealthy places. These changes coincide with (1) an increase in housing prices in productive areas, (2) a divergence in the skill-specific returns to living in those places, and (3) a redirection of unskilled migration away from productive places. We develop a model in which rising housing prices in wealthy areas deter unskilled migration and slow income convergence. Using a new panel measure of housing supply regulations, we demonstrate the importance of this channel in the data. Income convergence continues in less-regulated places, while it has mostly stopped in places with more regulation.
My present position is that, although I hate the thought of No Deal and the damage it will do, we may have to do it in order to finally prove that the country is poorer and worse off out of the EU than in it.
And all this horsesh*t about "taking back control", "blue passports" and "sovereignty" will turn out be nothing more than cover for English Nationalists and xenophobes.
"In some counterfactual scenario we would be richer" is simply insufficient to persuade most people that this counterfactual is preferable. It also needs to chime with other preferences. For example, although there are some environmental regulations that make us better off (for example, by addressing negative externalities of pollution) there are others that, on net, ebate look frankly trivial. If your priority really is becoming more rich/less poor, and you are prepared to commit the UK to a political union to do so, then the logical answer is Atlanticist.
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
Were we to do so, it is likely that our voting power inside USA would see their worst excesses curbed. The path to a Republican win in the House would be near insurmountable. All but the mildest Centrist President too. Gun laws are set at State level and lower, though rendered largely ineffectual by neighbouring States, so we wouldn't get that. Death penalty too. Wisconsin has never executed anybody.
The UK is nearly double the population of California, which has 55 EC votes the most for any US state. So let us give the UK around 100 EC votes.
If we assume the UK would have voted for every Democratic candidate since Bill Clinton (the UK likely would have voted for Reagan twice and Bush Snr in 1988 as it voted for Thatcher and Major in 1992) then had the UK been part of the Electoral College then Gore would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 3 EC votes and Kerry would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 36 EC votes.
However Trump may still have beaten Hillary as he beat her
Don’t forget the House of Representatives is capped to 435 members. The EC with the state of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be 540 strong, with GB&NI getting around 80 EVs.
Also who’s going to tell Brenda she’s going onto JSA as the US Constitution requires states to have “a Republican Form of Government”?
Not JSA. That is for under 65s. Attendance Allowance for Phillip.
My present position is that, although I hate the thought of No Deal and the damage it will do, we may have to do it in order to finally prove that the country is poorer and worse off out of the EU than in it.
And all this horsesh*t about "taking back control", "blue passports" and "sovereignty" will turn out be nothing more than cover for English Nationalists and xenophobes.
"In some counterfactual scenario we would be richer" is simply insufficient to persuade most people that this counterfactual is preferable. It also needs to chime with other preferences. For example, although there are some environmental regulations that make us better off (for example, by addressing negative externalities of pollution) there are others that, on net, ebate look frankly trivial. If your priority really is becoming more rich/less poor, and you are prepared to commit the UK to a political union to do so, then the logical answer is Atlanticist.
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
Were we to do so, it is likely that our voting power inside USA would see their worst excesses curbed. The path to a Republican win in the House would be near insurmountable. All but the mildest Centrist President too. Gun laws are set at State level and lower, though rendered largely ineffectual by neighbouring States, so we wouldn't get that. Death penalty too. Wisconsin has never executed anybody.
The UK is nearly double the population of California, which has 55 EC votes the most for any US state. So let us give the UK around 100 EC votes.
If we assume the UK would have voted for every Democratic candidate since Bill Clinton (the UK likely would have voted for Reagan twice and Bush Snr in 1988 as it voted for Thatcher and Major in 1992) then had the UK been part of the Electoral College then Gore would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 3 EC votes and Kerry would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 36 EC votes.
However Trump may still have beaten Hillary as he beat her
Don’t forget the House of Representatives is capped to 435 members. The EC with the state of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be 540 strong, with GB&NI getting around 80 EVs.
Also who’s going to tell Brenda she’s going onto JSA as the US Constitution requires states to have “a Republican Form of Government”?
As she is a worth hundreds of millions in her own right I am sure she would be fine regardless, though of course she could put in a bid to restore the monarchy that ended with her ancestor George IIIrd when the American colonies went independent
As she is a worth hundreds of millions in her own right I am sure she would be fine regardless, though of course she could put in a bid to restore the monarchy that ended with her ancestor George IIIrd when the American colonies went independent
I'm sure Trump could be persuaded with an hereditary dukedom. Duke of New York, perhaps?
As she is a worth hundreds of millions in her own right I am sure she would be fine regardless, though of course she could put in a bid to restore the monarchy that ended with her ancestor George IIIrd when the American colonies went independent
I'm sure Trump could be persuaded with an hereditary dukedom. Duke of New York, perhaps?
My present position is that, although I hate the thought of No Deal and the damage it will do, we may have to do it in order to finally prove that the country is poorer and worse off out of the EU than in it.
And all this horsesh*t about "taking back control", "blue passports" and "sovereignty" will turn out be nothing more than cover for English Nationalists and xenophobes.
"In some counterfactual scenario we would be richer" is simply insufficient to persuade most people that this counterfactual is preferable. It also needs to chime with other preferences. For example, although there are some environmental regulations that make us better off (for example, by addressing negative externalities of pollution) there are others that, on net, ebate look frankly trivial. If your priority really is becoming more rich/less poor, and you are prepared to commit the UK to a political union to do so, then the logical answer is Atlanticist.
Every day that we are not a state of the USA, makes your grandchildren poorer. Far poorer than a day spent outside the EU.
Were we to do so, it is likely that our voting power inside USA would see their worst excesses curbed. The path to a Republican win in the House would be near insurmountable. All but the mildest Centrist President too. Gun laws are set at State level and lower, though rendered largely ineffectual by neighbouring States, so we wouldn't get that. Death penalty too. Wisconsin has never executed anybody.
The UK is nearly double the population of California, which has 55 EC votes the most for any US state. So let us give the UK around 100 EC votes.
If we assume the UK would have voted for every Democratic candidate since Bill Clinton (the UK likely would have voted for Reagan twice and Bush Snr in 1988 as it voted for Thatcher and Major in 1992) then had the UK been part of the Electoral College then Gore would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 3 EC votes and Kerry would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 36 EC votes.
However Trump may still have beaten Hillary as he beat her
Don’t forget the House of Representatives is capped to 435 members. The EC with the state of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be 540 strong, with GB&NI getting around 80 EVs.
Also who’s going to tell Brenda she’s going onto JSA as the US Constitution requires states to have “a Republican Form of Government”?
Comments
In the event of "No Deal" there will need to be a new system for regulating this, and the government will, of course, be on the hook to those whom it sold previous fishing rights.
* Foreign not just meaning Spanish. Some UK derived fishing quotas have been sold to Canadian fishermen, and probably US ones too
I intend the above contentions as mere statements of fact, just as you do yours, so since they clash I doubt we'd reach agreement on them. (For example, you're correct that the average US full-time worker works longer than in the UK, 47 vs 43 hours, and the federal US minimum wage is less than the UK one. I'm not suggesting that your claims about UK/US differences are wrong, rather that the US figures are heterogeneous between states and the UK electorate would likely vote to retain levels in line with their historical preferences.)
But just for the sake of argument, let's say that every single one of the objections in your response happened to be ticked off - our hypothetical USA isn't just richer per capita but also less unequal, has better healthcare even for the poor, has more pleasant working hours...
Then at what point do you get up in arms that we have not yet joined the USA? Is your preference based very strongly on the social model at play? I suspect there's a status quo effect at play, whereby being out of it, there's less drive to want to enter into it.
I think she has a real chance but I think there is a real chance she will be eaten alive by Trump. Hence I've moved my book to take profits on her nomination rather than too much to do with the presidency.
I think the relative positions of the US parties would adjust to the new electoral arithmetic rather than remain static. As you say, Brits would form a very substantial voting bloc and significantly sway many areas of policy.
I write from the Devil's Advocate position, but it does surprise me - particularly given the number and wealth of Anglo-American elite who swan back and forth across the Atlantic, the commonality of language and history, and the quantity of US media we consume - that there isn't at least a fringe Atlantic Unionist movement in the UK. I'd have thought there'd be some pretty deep pockets willing to fund it, but nope.
"stop brexit"
pick one...
Trump also is clearly sharp whether you like him or not
If we assume the UK would have voted for every Democratic candidate from and including Bill Clinton (the UK likely would have voted for Reagan twice and Bush Snr in 1988 as it voted for Thatcher and Major in 1992) then had the UK been part of the Electoral College then Gore would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 5 EC votes and Kerry would have beaten Bush as he only lost by 35 EC votes.
However Trump may still have beaten Hillary as he beat her by 77 votes, depending on how many EC votes the UK got
https://twitter.com/nihilistspicer/status/1162091208514134016
https://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1096762653140283398
Why do you think I was talking about them?
There's some good academic research available at the Fed on this, if you're interested.
Also who’s going to tell Brenda she’s going onto JSA as the US Constitution requires states to have “a Republican Form of Government”?
I have some (dated, now!) degree notes somewhere for a module about economics of European integration which was pretty interesting.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shoag/files/why_has_regional_income_convergence_in_the_us_declined_01.pdf
The past thirty years have seen a dramatic decline in the rate of income convergence across states and in population flows to wealthy places. These changes coincide with (1) an increase in housing prices in productive areas, (2) a divergence in the skill-specific returns to living in those places, and (3) a redirection of unskilled migration away from productive places. We develop a model in which rising housing prices in wealthy areas deter unskilled migration and slow income convergence. Using a new panel measure of housing supply regulations, we demonstrate the importance of this channel in the data. Income convergence continues in less-regulated places, while it has mostly stopped in places with more regulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlXHCykk7fU