It's not arrogance it is realism. Parliament has spent the entire year split 3+ ways and refusing to do its job, now even when it comes down to mere weeks before the hardest of No Deal exits they're still refusing to decide.
Parliament has a choice.
That's right, and Remainers calling each other names doesn't help. I think it's possible that if a serious effort to take Corbyn's offer fails then a last-minute GNU option might emerge, but not if it's preceded by well-poisoning.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Yes that went well did it not. The question has already been well scrutinised and it will not be changed to suit rigging by unionists. If it is even needed, given we can revoke a treaty any time we wish under international law.
Strictly speaking it’s defined as an ideology based on struggle that envisages complete mobilisation of society under a strong leader - who rejects democracy- where the identity and rights of the individual are subsumed by those of the nation as a whole, as embodied by the dictator.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Remain is very much the U word. Which is no doubt why David Cameron didn't notice the implications of using it.
(Not that I think it would have really affected the result.)
Inspector Morse once worked out that a murderer was posh because she said in an anonymous phone call "Remain there" instead of "Stay there."
It's not arrogance it is realism. Parliament has spent the entire year split 3+ ways and refusing to do its job, now even when it comes down to mere weeks before the hardest of No Deal exits they're still refusing to decide.
Parliament has a choice.
On that score I have to agree. They're still searching for magic solutions which lead to no problems or compromise to their wishes or morals, but when the outcomes of leave (in any way, even a great new deal) will horrify so many people they are going to face major problems politically be it no deal or remain.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
You are talking to a diehard Tory , unionist fanatic , Scotland hater. I would not expect to get any sensible suggestion that is fair.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Trouble is, McDonnell is right, or nearly right anyway. Corbyn's extension plus election plan looks more plausible than GNU fantasies around Ken Clarke. No-one commands a majority in the House, except perhaps Boris, and on Brexit that seems unlikely. If the Remainers are serious about stopping Brexit, they need to hold their noses and support Corbyn, or at least come up with a viable alternative rather than yet more unicorns.
I saw your posts yesterday and they were pretty spot on. However in this instance Corbyn's a special case. He unites like I'm sure no other Labour leader the Tories against him. Starmer? Okay. La Thornberry? Yup if we have to. Corbyn/Macca/Milne clique? No way.
I cannot see anymore how he could do any worse for the country. No doubt he will surprise me somehow.
If he does even half of what he has said he would do then I think it would be very bad for the country.
I think 90% is about right actually and greened up here a few weeks back - the 1-2+ on Trump being the nominee was massive.
Back Donald Trump for £273.58 @ 1.66 to win £180.05 Lay Donald Trump for £405.00 @ 1.12 liability £48.60
He's extremely obese (More like 300 lbs and 6 foot) whatever his doctor says and is in his 70s . All those concerns over Sanders and Biden are not so acute, they're around 2-1 collectively not 1-10. So, de Novo 10-1 represents slight value - having Pence green in the presidential market is also correct. Over time though the odds will of course shorten to 1.01 if nothing happens though.
It's not arrogance it is realism. Parliament has spent the entire year split 3+ ways and refusing to do its job, now even when it comes down to mere weeks before the hardest of No Deal exits they're still refusing to decide.
Parliament has a choice.
That's right, and Remainers calling each other names doesn't help. I think it's possible that if a serious effort to take Corbyn's offer fails then a last-minute GNU option might emerge, but not if it's preceded by well-poisoning.
Corbyn has been just as politically partisan and opportunistic on this as any other party leader. Arguably more so, since he knows how divisive and unpopular he is.
An effort to stop No Deal Brexit will very likely fail for the simple reason that all parties are (still) far more interested in pursuing narrow party political advantage than really working together to stop it.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay"
“Leave” has a number of antonyms, including both “stay” and “remain” - though “continue” might be less emotionally charged. Remain has some great antonyms too, such as “depart” or “cease”. The key is to get two words which bring the greatest clarity with the least baggage - such as the positivity of “Yes” and the negativity of “No”. You’d think they would want to use “Leave” since it won last time it was used....
If Number 10 is not careful, it will find itself at war with the Murdoch empire going into an election. This is the second Times/ST story in a week that has been leaked and then rubbished. First was the stamp duty change. Ministers should not use the press as a focus group for manifesto ideas.
That'll be the day. Its too easy for them to float anything then disavow, so we can expect more and more in the next few months sadly
It's not arrogance it is realism. Parliament has spent the entire year split 3+ ways and refusing to do its job, now even when it comes down to mere weeks before the hardest of No Deal exits they're still refusing to decide.
Parliament has a choice.
That's right, and Remainers calling each other names doesn't help. I think it's possible that if a serious effort to take Corbyn's offer fails then a last-minute GNU option might emerge, but not if it's preceded by well-poisoning.
There will not be a GNU. If Corbyn's offer fails, which is pretty certain given the cretins leading the opposition to it , then it is No Deal. Whether you like Boris or not he is fixated on going for Bust. It will be No Deal and then an election.
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
It seems for our far left there is negligible difference to Nazis based on your chart. Drop the justifications and acknowledge the left's antisemitism it is:
Willing to use violence: Yes/Yes Free Speech: No/No Jews: No/No
Every political ideology is backed by violence. Liberalism is backed by violence. It is just the violence of the state. If you can read the tweet, anti-fascist violence is aimed at one group, fascists, to prevent fascism. Fascists, on the other hand, direct violence at everyone in the name of fascism.
I understand people are believe "the left" hates free speech, but again, saying you're against hate speech is not that thing. I understand people like to believe "PC culture" is a real argument, and apparently the left are feelings based and the right are facts based, but all I see is the right making arguments from culture, history and identity (feelings) and the centre / left making arguments based on the data, what experts say and trends (facts).
Also, there may be some people in Labour who dislike Jews. This is not "the left". In fact, many antifa members are Jews because, and this may surprise you, the words "never forget" kinda mean something to them. They are aware where fascism leads.
Also also, when did being "antifascist" make you a leftist? Aren't we all supposed to be against fascists? Do we not think that keeping these thugs away from the levers of power is important? Just because we are a liberal democracy, doesn't mean we should allow people who argue in favour of genocide to be allowed to do that. You wouldn't allow a hook handed imam to stand on a platform of "kill all Jews"; just because it's a well groomed white guy in a suit, doesn't mean we should take him seriously.
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
Trump dropping out is one of the most unlikeliest things in politics I have ever heard frankly.
Scaramucci has failed to notice that the only way Trump believes he will lose is if the election is rigged and stolen by the elite deep state and, in that case, he will refuse to stand down and trigger absolute constitutional mayhem and civil unrest.
Bannon is far more on the button with this. He was saying the other day that the end will come for Trump one day possibly in 2020 and it will be very very messy and very unseemly.
That is garbled. The anonymous MP is right they can revoke Article 50 before we have left. Bogdanor might be right that the EU would quickly readmit us (if nothing else has changed). But they are not quite the same thing.
Wow the government have sorted all those issues out in 18 days and during the holiday season, those new ministers must be hot shit!
It’s worth listening to Radio4 Today from about 7:15
They had the former head of the pharmaceutical trade body on and were pushing him on no deal preparations
He basically said that they had had a huge amount of interaction with government, that plans were in place and it was all well organised.
The only thing he pointed out was that in March the government was working with industry to maintain 6 weeks surplus inventory as a safety stock but this time companies are making their own arrangement. (It’s worth noting that usual shelf life on pharma products is 2 years, so if the NHS held extra inventory in March they could maintain that until November with no problem - I assume but don’t know that this is what has been done)
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Remain is very much the U word. Which is no doubt why David Cameron didn't notice the implications of using it.
(Not that I think it would have really affected the result.)
Inspector Morse once worked out that a murderer was posh because she said in an anonymous phone call "Remain there" instead of "Stay there."
Maybe it did colour the whole campaign: making the Leave "anti-establishment" bullshit resonate more. And nobody can be enthusiastic about "Remain". "Stay" would have been much better, and in a much closer register to "Leave", so obviously a more neutral question.
Trump might not be able to cope with the prospect of defeat but he might not believe it either. He was behind in the polls last time, for the nomination and in the election itself. Is the Donald a Corbynista, confident he can make up 20 points in the campaign?
Trump "lost" last time as well - by a big margin, 3m+ votes. But by accident or design [ a bit of both as the Rust Belt was his only path ] he won the EC. This time to replicate the same trick might be more difficult. Blacks will turn out this time and those small margins in the Midwest will be made up. The Hispanic vote does not have much of an impact in these states but will make sure that New Mexico, Nevada definitely stays Blue. I would put Arizona in the mix. I'd look at the Iowa caucuses as well. Normally Iowa is reasonably safe Republican, but the China policy have affected the farmers badly regardless of how much subsidy he puts in.
I don't think the black vote will necessarily turn out in higher numbers than 2016, especially if Biden is not the nominee, or at a push Harris
You also didn't think it was going to be record turn out at the mid terms either.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Remain is very much the U word. Which is no doubt why David Cameron didn't notice the implications of using it.
(Not that I think it would have really affected the result.)
Inspector Morse once worked out that a murderer was posh because she said in an anonymous phone call "Remain there" instead of "Stay there."
Maybe it did colour the whole campaign: making the Leave "anti-establishment" bullshit resonate more. And nobody can be enthusiastic about "Remain". "Stay" would have been much better, and in a much closer register to "Leave", so obviously a more neutral question.
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
It seems for our far left there is negligible difference to Nazis based on your chart. Drop the justifications and acknowledge the left's antisemitism it is:
Willing to use violence: Yes/Yes Free Speech: No/No Jews: No/No
Every political ideology is backed by violence. Liberalism is backed by violence. It is just the violence of the state. If you can read the tweet, anti-fascist violence is aimed at one group, fascists, to prevent fascism. Fascists, on the other hand, direct violence at everyone in the name of fascism.
I understand people are believe "the left" hates free speech, but again, saying you're against hate speech is not that thing. I understand people like to believe "PC culture" is a real argument, and apparently the left are feelings based and the right are facts based, but all I see is the right making arguments from culture, history and identity (feelings) and the centre / left making arguments based on the data, what experts say and trends (facts).
Also, there may be some people in Labour who dislike Jews. This is not "the left". In fact, many antifa members are Jews because, and this may surprise you, the words "never forget" kinda mean something to them. They are aware where fascism leads.
Also also, when did being "antifascist" make you a leftist? Aren't we all supposed to be against fascists? Do we not think that keeping these thugs away from the levers of power is important? Just because we are a liberal democracy, doesn't mean we should allow people who argue in favour of genocide to be allowed to do that. You wouldn't allow a hook handed imam to stand on a platform of "kill all Jews"; just because it's a well groomed white guy in a suit, doesn't mean we should take him seriously.
I'm against fascism. I don't stand under a red and black flag to do so.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes given an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
It's not arrogance it is realism. Parliament has spent the entire year split 3+ ways and refusing to do its job, now even when it comes down to mere weeks before the hardest of No Deal exits they're still refusing to decide.
Parliament has a choice.
That's right, and Remainers calling each other names doesn't help. I think it's possible that if a serious effort to take Corbyn's offer fails then a last-minute GNU option might emerge, but not if it's preceded by well-poisoning.
Corbyn has been just as politically partisan and opportunistic on this as any other party leader. Arguably more so, since he knows how divisive and unpopular he is.
An effort to stop No Deal Brexit will very likely fail for the simple reason that all parties are (still) far more interested in pursuing narrow party political advantage than really working together to stop it.
Of course Corbyn is partisan and opportunistic but his plan is by far the best chance Remain MPs have got. You may be right they are too stubborn to take it.
Trouble is, McDonnell is right, or nearly right anyway. Corbyn's extension plus election plan looks more plausible than GNU fantasies around Ken Clarke. No-one commands a majority in the House, except perhaps Boris, and on Brexit that seems unlikely. If the Remainers are serious about stopping Brexit, they need to hold their noses and support Corbyn, or at least come up with a viable alternative rather than yet more unicorns.
I saw your posts yesterday and they were pretty spot on. However in this instance Corbyn's a special case. He unites like I'm sure no other Labour leader the Tories against him. Starmer? Okay. La Thornberry? Yup if we have to. Corbyn/Macca/Milne clique? No way.
I cannot see anymore how he could do any worse for the country. No doubt he will surprise me somehow.
If he does even half of what he has said he would do then I think it would be very bad for the country.
I'm sure that's true. What I'm less clear on is if it is any worse than people who proudly admit they will pursue something do or die, that is even if the facts changed in their own favour, and who openly care for nothing but that one policy as (puts on hyufd voice) polling indicates.
Trump might not be able to cope with the prospect of defeat but he might not believe it either. He was behind in the polls last time, for the nomination and in the election itself. Is the Donald a Corbynista, confident he can make up 20 points in the campaign?
Trump "lost" last time as well - by a big margin, 3m+ votes. But by accident or design [ a bit of both as the Rust Belt was his only path ] he won the EC. This time to replicate the same trick might be more difficult. Blacks will turn out this time and those small margins in the Midwest will be made up. The Hispanic vote does not have much of an impact in these states but will make sure that New Mexico, Nevada definitely stays Blue. I would put Arizona in the mix. I'd look at the Iowa caucuses as well. Normally Iowa is reasonably safe Republican, but the China policy have affected the farmers badly regardless of how much subsidy he puts in.
I don't think the black vote will necessarily turn out in higher numbers than 2016, especially if Biden is not the nominee, or at a push Harris
You also didn't think it was going to be record turn out at the mid terms either.
There was at least some polling evidence for that, there is no polling evidence in any poll that shows any Democrat doing better than Biden against Trump (though at 50.3% the midterms turnout was still lower than for any presidential election since 1996)
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Remain is very much the U word. Which is no doubt why David Cameron didn't notice the implications of using it.
(Not that I think it would have really affected the result.)
Inspector Morse once worked out that a murderer was posh because she said in an anonymous phone call "Remain there" instead of "Stay there."
Maybe it did colour the whole campaign: making the Leave "anti-establishment" bullshit resonate more. And nobody can be enthusiastic about "Remain". "Stay" would have been much better, and in a much closer register to "Leave", so obviously a more neutral question.
"Stay!" What do you think we are - dogs?
So do you say to humans "please remain"? seriously? (When I had dogs I also used the word "leave" with them quite often.)
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Actually credible forcasting does and should include contingent events . . . especially contingent events in the forecasters control!
The BoE forecast a base rate increase immediately following a vote to leave. They didn't forecast an immediate cut or lack of action.
Trouble is, McDonnell is right, or nearly right anyway. Corbyn's extension plus election plan looks more plausible than GNU fantasies around Ken Clarke. No-one commands a majority in the House, except perhaps Boris, and on Brexit that seems unlikely. If the Remainers are serious about stopping Brexit, they need to hold their noses and support Corbyn, or at least come up with a viable alternative rather than yet more unicorns.
I saw your posts yesterday and they were pretty spot on. However in this instance Corbyn's a special case. He unites like I'm sure no other Labour leader the Tories against him. Starmer? Okay. La Thornberry? Yup if we have to. Corbyn/Macca/Milne clique? No way.
I cannot see anymore how he could do any worse for the country. No doubt he will surprise me somehow.
If he does even half of what he has said he would do then I think it would be very bad for the country.
I'm sure that's true. What I'm less clear on is if it is any worse than people who proudly admit they will pursue something do or die, that is even if the facts changed in their own favour, and who openly care for nothing but that one policy as (puts on hyufd voice) polling indicates.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Oh hogshit Mr T
economic forecasting is an activity where most people get it wrong and those who get it right rarely repeat the trick. We struggle to forecast accurately 12 months ahead anything beyond that is simply hope or fiction.
And as you point out there are so many variables there is not much point taking them seriously. It's a guess its not a fact.
Trouble is, McDonnell is right, or nearly right anyway. Corbyn's extension plus election plan looks more plausible than GNU fantasies around Ken Clarke. No-one commands a majority in the House, except perhaps Boris, and on Brexit that seems unlikely. If the Remainers are serious about stopping Brexit, they need to hold their noses and support Corbyn, or at least come up with a viable alternative rather than yet more unicorns.
I saw your posts yesterday and they were pretty spot on. However in this instance Corbyn's a special case. He unites like I'm sure no other Labour leader the Tories against him. Starmer? Okay. La Thornberry? Yup if we have to. Corbyn/Macca/Milne clique? No way.
Remain MPs need to nail Corbyn down on purdah, which is already on the table, to ensure nothing besides extension and election happens. That is what counts.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Actually credible forcasting does and should include contingent events . . . especially contingent events in the forecasters control!
The BoE forecast a base rate increase immediately following a vote to leave. They didn't forecast an immediate cut or lack of action.
I think that's where you show the limitations of your economic training. NIESR, which compiled those forecasts, is full of people dare I say better qualified than you to make those decisions.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Actually credible forcasting does and should include contingent events . . . especially contingent events in the forecasters control!
The BoE forecast a base rate increase immediately following a vote to leave. They didn't forecast an immediate cut or lack of action.
I think that's where you show the limitations of your economic training. NIESR, which compiled those forecasts, is full of people dare I say better qualified than you to make those decisions.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Actually credible forcasting does and should include contingent events . . . especially contingent events in the forecasters control!
The BoE forecast a base rate increase immediately following a vote to leave. They didn't forecast an immediate cut or lack of action.
I think that's where you show the limitations of your economic training. NIESR, which compiled those forecasts, is full of people dare I say better qualified than you to make those decisions.
Better qualified to determine that there would be a BoE base rate increase, when actually there was a BoE base rate decrease?
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Oh hogshit Mr T
economic forecasting is an activity where most people get it wrong and those who get it right rarely repeat the trick. We struggle to forecast accurately 12 months ahead anything beyond that is simply hope or fiction.
And as you point out there are so many variables there is not much point taking them seriously. It's a guess its not a fact.
Don’t you claim to run some kind of business?
It’s an “interesting” management concept to claim that there is no point forecasting more than 12 months out. I thought your troll schtick was to rail against short termism.
That is garbled. The anonymous MP is right they can revoke Article 50 before we have left. Bogdanor might be right that the EU would quickly readmit us (if nothing else has changed). But they are not quite the same thing.
If the EU is anything, it is wedded to implementing its systems of laws. It is anethema to them to suggest they would just "pretend" we haven't departed. There are rules for countries joining. They would not be waived.
Labour would be in a ground-floor negotiation for re-admittance. They seem to think that the EU would just ride up to them on unicorns, beckoning them in. No, they would have somebody like Barnier, tasked with ensuring that if we came back, that we would be good little Europeans, massively shackled to prevent us departing ever again. And paying a heavy price - bye bye opt outs, bye bye rebates. I suspect that everyone having seen that Article 50 is a shit-show, there would be pressure to amend the rules to lock everybody in.
And signing us up to that lot that would - politically at least - need another UK referendum. And many millions of us would not wear it.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Oh hogshit Mr T
economic forecasting is an activity where most people get it wrong and those who get it right rarely repeat the trick. We struggle to forecast accurately 12 months ahead anything beyond that is simply hope or fiction.
And as you point out there are so many variables there is not much point taking them seriously. It's a guess its not a fact.
Don’t you claim to run some kind of business?
It’s an “interesting” management concept to claim that there is no point forecasting more than 12 months out. I thought your troll schtick was to rail against short termism.
businesses do budgets
budgets are as much about management negotiating the terms of their bonus as they are about forecasting. Most budgets likewise end up being wrong.
The issue on forecasting\budgetting is to make people think about the key issues in their business and what they are going to do about them rather than hitting an arbitrary number.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Actually credible forcasting does and should include contingent events . . . especially contingent events in the forecasters control!
The BoE forecast a base rate increase immediately following a vote to leave. They didn't forecast an immediate cut or lack of action.
I think that's where you show the limitations of your economic training. NIESR, which compiled those forecasts, is full of people dare I say better qualified than you to make those decisions.
Better qualified to determine that there would be a BoE base rate increase, when actually there was a BoE base rate decrease?
How does the Treasury forecast stack up against the simultaneous “sunlit uplands” and the “closing down of the North” forecasts of elderly Brexit witch doctor / economist Patrick Minford?
No need to forecast this - After our No Deal Brexit we’ll be entirely dependent on the French to keep UK freight moving in and out of Calais, entirely dependent on the Spanish to keep the Gibraltar border functioning and entirely dependent on Ireland to keep the NI border flowing. We’re taking back control.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Remain is very much the U word. Which is no doubt why David Cameron didn't notice the implications of using it.
(Not that I think it would have really affected the result.)
Inspector Morse once worked out that a murderer was posh because she said in an anonymous phone call "Remain there" instead of "Stay there."
Maybe it did colour the whole campaign: making the Leave "anti-establishment" bullshit resonate more. And nobody can be enthusiastic about "Remain". "Stay" would have been much better, and in a much closer register to "Leave", so obviously a more neutral question.
If punters believe Scaramucci has a point, then surely a bet on Pence at 85 is an absolute steal?
Do you mean as next president or winner of the 2020 presidential election? 85 on Pence taking over the presidency from Trump might possibly be value but not by much.
I think it is hard to see Pence as the winner of the election. If Trump doesn't stand then it is beacuse he thinks he cannot win the election. As Pence was on the same 2016 Ticket, he will struggle to do much better than Trump, and the Republicans will almost certainly choose a different candidate.
No need to forecast this - After our No Deal Brexit we’ll be entirely dependent on the French to keep UK freight moving in and out of Calais, entirely dependent on the Spanish to keep the Gibraltar border functioning and entirely dependent on Ireland to keep the NI border flowing. We’re taking back control.
We are taking back control of our country not theirs. What part of that concept do you struggle with?
So do you say to humans "please remain"? seriously? (When I had dogs I also used the word "leave" with them quite often.)
jeez
The posters would have been brutal. If you can't see how some Establishment figure barking "Stay!" to Britain would have been a boon to the leave side, frankly you are beyond helping....
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
"This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held."
Can more than one election even happen under the US system?
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
That chart is just highly concentrated essence of political smugness.
It is still true both in detail and in its overarching point. Nazis and fascists are a clear danger to our civilisation as we know from history and all measures are appropriate to halt their spread, including confronting them with force - especially if the state is unwilling to do so itself.
No need to forecast this - After our No Deal Brexit we’ll be entirely dependent on the French to keep UK freight moving in and out of Calais, entirely dependent on the Spanish to keep the Gibraltar border functioning and entirely dependent on Ireland to keep the NI border flowing. We’re taking back control.
We are taking back control of our country not theirs. What part of that concept do you struggle with?
Brexit means the surrender of control.
It is the control experienced by the driver as he holds fast to the wheel...even though he has just snapped it off the steering shaft.
So do you say to humans "please remain"? seriously? (When I had dogs I also used the word "leave" with them quite often.)
jeez
The posters would have been brutal. If you can't see how some Establishment figure barking "Stay!" to Britain would have been a boon to the leave side, frankly you are beyond helping....
yet all the establishment figures "barking" "leave" seemed to do ok last time. btw what's with all the dehumanising language?
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Oh hogshit Mr T
economic forecasting is an activity where most people get it wrong and those who get it right rarely repeat the trick. We struggle to forecast accurately 12 months ahead anything beyond that is simply hope or fiction.
And as you point out there are so many variables there is not much point taking them seriously. It's a guess its not a fact.
Don’t you claim to run some kind of business?
It’s an “interesting” management concept to claim that there is no point forecasting more than 12 months out. I thought your troll schtick was to rail against short termism.
We forecast for three years, but are generally reforecasting on a permanent basis. Things change quickly. The one thing I’ve learned in business is that nothing is set in stone when it comes to market behaviour. You can, though, make pretty decent balance judgements. On Brexit the downside has always outweighed the upside for me. And that remains the case. I don’t see a credible path to the UK being more prosperous, contented and unified by leaving the EU without a deal.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
We haven’t left yet, dummy.
As has been explained many, many times the four quarter recession was forecast to immediately follow a Leave VOTE.
2.44 In both scenarios, a vote to leave the EU would result in a recession. Setting the shock scenario against the OBR’s Budget 2016 forecast, the analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into recession with four quarters of negative growth.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Remain is very much the U word. Which is no doubt why David Cameron didn't notice the implications of using it.
(Not that I think it would have really affected the result.)
Inspector Morse once worked out that a murderer was posh because she said in an anonymous phone call "Remain there" instead of "Stay there."
Maybe it did colour the whole campaign: making the Leave "anti-establishment" bullshit resonate more. And nobody can be enthusiastic about "Remain". "Stay" would have been much better, and in a much closer register to "Leave", so obviously a more neutral question.
"Stay!" What do you think we are - dogs?
'Leave' is pretty doggy commandy, so...
Except "Leave" is when you want them to back off something distinctly unpleasant they have got into.....
Remain never considered that the UK had been subliminally trained by Barbara Woodhouse.
"This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held."
Can more than one election even happen under the US system?
Not without a change to the Constitution. I imagine that's just a pro forma set of words they use in all elections like that just in case.
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
Just a couple of observations so far - first, Boris Johnson is so fortunate in having Jeremy Corbyn as LOTO. If Johnson wants to have an election, Corbyn will oblige. Once again I'm puzzled by Labour's positioning on this - let's say Corbyn gets his election and wins. What then? I can only presume he doesn't care - the socialist re-making of Britain will occur whether we are in the EU or not and indeed leaving without a WA makes it easier.
Those who argue for sovereignty or the taking back of control will doubtless applaud Corbyn's ability to re-make Britain and it will be as though the last 40 years had never happened. I've always thought Corbyn thinks he can win if he could speak to every elector individually but the polls suggest whatever magic he once had has gone.
Second, picking up from the weekend banter. There is no majority in Parliament for a No Deal exit but that doesn't equate to a majority to Remain. The "BIg G-ers" (so to speak) are those who still want the WA to pass and that does meet the key criteria of getting us out of the EU and respecting the 23/6/16 result. The problem is a lot of people don't like the WA for various reasons (that probably means it's a good Deal but that doesn't matter).
The problem is those wanting to remain (revoke) and those wanting to leave with a WA are only united in wanting to stop us leaving without a WA. Neither position can command a majority in the Commons (which is why No Deal Brexit is going to happen) and neither side seems willing to give ground. The polarisation of views means those wanting us to Remain are happy to ignore the 23/6/16 referendum while those wanting us to leave without a WA are uncaring as to the economic damage, dislocation and cost of mitigation (which has paralysed Government and meant other work hasn't been done).
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
That chart is just highly concentrated essence of political smugness.
It is still true both in detail and in its overarching point. Nazis and fascists are a clear danger to our civilisation as we know from history and all measures are appropriate to halt their spread, including confronting them with force - especially if the state is unwilling to do so itself.
Oh just shut up. It is contemptible and dangerous on both sides.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Oh hogshit Mr T
economic forecasting is an activity where most people get it wrong and those who get it right rarely repeat the trick. We struggle to forecast accurately 12 months ahead anything beyond that is simply hope or fiction.
And as you point out there are so many variables there is not much point taking them seriously. It's a guess its not a fact.
Don’t you claim to run some kind of business?
It’s an “interesting” management concept to claim that there is no point forecasting more than 12 months out. I thought your troll schtick was to rail against short termism.
businesses do budgets
budgets are as much about management negotiating the terms of their bonus as they are about forecasting. Most budgets likewise end up being wrong.
The issue on forecasting\budgetting is to make people think about the key issues in their business and what they are going to do about them rather than hitting an arbitrary number.
We used to call our Budget Meetings “Industrial Theatre” with the brands justifying to management the numbers management had given them the month before. On one project going from test market to national the European bods had gone through the test market economics, adjusted them for inflation and exchange rates and wanted to know why two of the numbers were slightly different. I bit my tongue and didn’t observe that it was a fecking miracle any of them were within 50% of each other and muttered about increased European overheads and that was the end of that.....
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Oh hogshit Mr T
economic forecasting is an activity where most people get it wrong and those who get it right rarely repeat the trick. We struggle to forecast accurately 12 months ahead anything beyond that is simply hope or fiction.
And as you point out there are so many variables there is not much point taking them seriously. It's a guess its not a fact.
Don’t you claim to run some kind of business?
It’s an “interesting” management concept to claim that there is no point forecasting more than 12 months out. I thought your troll schtick was to rail against short termism.
businesses do budgets
budgets are as much about management negotiating the terms of their bonus as they are about forecasting. Most budgets likewise end up being wrong.
The issue on forecasting\budgetting is to make people think about the key issues in their business and what they are going to do about them rather than hitting an arbitrary number.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Remain is very much the U word. Which is no doubt why David Cameron didn't notice the implications of using it.
(Not that I think it would have really affected the result.)
I find it interesting how the Norman conquest still impacts today. IANE but I believe the roots of these words are:
Leave - Old English lǣfan Remain - Old French remanoir
Cameron should have chosen Depart (Old French) and Stay, to help his cause.
Stay has multiple roots in OF, OE, Old Dutch, Proto-Germanic and Latin according to wiktionary, and would thus have been a much better word to represent our common European roots.
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
That chart is just highly concentrated essence of political smugness.
The recent Proud boys Vs Antifa battle in Portland is one where I'm hoping both sides lose.
You also had some very bad people on both sides kinda thing?
Of course both sides losing is a relatively rare outcome, and there usually comes a point when one has to choose the lesser of two evils (the Brexit WWII nostalgists seem to forget that their favourite world war evvah epitomised that).
"This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held."
Can more than one election even happen under the US system?
No. Short of constitutional amendment, which seems extremely unlikely.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
We haven’t left yet, dummy.
As has been explained many, many times the four quarter recession was forecast to immediately follow a Leave VOTE.
2.44 In both scenarios, a vote to leave the EU would result in a recession. Setting the shock scenario against the OBR’s Budget 2016 forecast, the analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into recession with four quarters of negative growth.
No need to forecast this - After our No Deal Brexit we’ll be entirely dependent on the French to keep UK freight moving in and out of Calais, entirely dependent on the Spanish to keep the Gibraltar border functioning and entirely dependent on Ireland to keep the NI border flowing. We’re taking back control.
We are taking back control of our country not theirs. What part of that concept do you struggle with?
I struggle with the idea that we gain control by giving it up and that we become more free by removing freedom. Your notions of control and freedom are just very different to mine.
Just a couple of observations so far - first, Boris Johnson is so fortunate in having Jeremy Corbyn as LOTO. If Johnson wants to have an election, Corbyn will oblige. Once again I'm puzzled by Labour's positioning on this - let's say Corbyn gets his election and wins. What then? I can only presume he doesn't care - the socialist re-making of Britain will occur whether we are in the EU or not and indeed leaving without a WA makes it easier.
Those who argue for sovereignty or the taking back of control will doubtless applaud Corbyn's ability to re-make Britain and it will be as though the last 40 years had never happened. I've always thought Corbyn thinks he can win if he could speak to every elector individually but the polls suggest whatever magic he once had has gone.
Second, picking up from the weekend banter. There is no majority in Parliament for a No Deal exit but that doesn't equate to a majority to Remain. The "BIg G-ers" (so to speak) are those who still want the WA to pass and that does meet the key criteria of getting us out of the EU and respecting the 23/6/16 result. The problem is a lot of people don't like the WA for various reasons (that probably means it's a good Deal but that doesn't matter).
The problem is those wanting to remain (revoke) and those wanting to leave with a WA are only united in wanting to stop us leaving without a WA. Neither position can command a majority in the Commons (which is why No Deal Brexit is going to happen) and neither side seems willing to give ground. The polarisation of views means those wanting us to Remain are happy to ignore the 23/6/16 referendum while those wanting us to leave without a WA are uncaring as to the economic damage, dislocation and cost of mitigation (which has paralysed Government and meant other work hasn't been done).
Indeed though I don't really want our current politicians meddling in any other work.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
We haven’t left yet, dummy.
As has been explained many, many times the four quarter recession was forecast to immediately follow a Leave VOTE.
2.44 In both scenarios, a vote to leave the EU would result in a recession. Setting the shock scenario against the OBR’s Budget 2016 forecast, the analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into recession with four quarters of negative growth.
And as has been explained many, many times the bank responded with a drop in the interest rate and cranking up quantitative easing.
So, worst case scenarios are meaningless because the organs of Governmment will - without the need to spell it out - work to ameliorate the worst effects of such worst case scenarios?
Glad we've cleared that up about the No Deal disaster scenarios.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Yes that went well did it not.
Well, if you want to Leave the United Kingdom, then yes, it went well.
Er... in what way did it go well? We haven't left yet and still might not.
What we have had is 3 years of nothing but Brexit dominating the political discourse. No action to speak of on major issues like social care, the state of public services, the environment, crime, drugs... all because Brexit dominates everything.
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
That chart is just highly concentrated essence of political smugness.
It is still true both in detail and in its overarching point. Nazis and fascists are a clear danger to our civilisation as we know from history and all measures are appropriate to halt their spread, including confronting them with force - especially if the state is unwilling to do so itself.
Oh just shut up. It is contemptible and dangerous on both sides.
Indeed. People argue we should restrict free speech and encourage violence because fascism is a threat (which it is) but that is exactly the logic fascists themselves used. They said they had to restrict free speech and encourage violence because Communism was a threat - which it was.
Don't seek to become the monster you seek to defeat. The solution to fascism isn't to become authoritarian yourself in opposition to it. It is to cherish our liberal values - the sanctity of free speech and freedom from violence.
If punters believe Scaramucci has a point, then surely a bet on Pence at 85 is an absolute steal?
Do you mean as next president or winner of the 2020 presidential election? 85 on Pence taking over the presidency from Trump might possibly be value but not by much.
I think it is hard to see Pence as the winner of the election. If Trump doesn't stand then it is beacuse he thinks he cannot win the election. As Pence was on the same 2016 Ticket, he will struggle to do much better than Trump, and the Republicans will almost certainly choose a different candidate.
The market is winning the election. I am sure you are probably right. But still 85.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Remain is very much the U word. Which is no doubt why David Cameron didn't notice the implications of using it.
(Not that I think it would have really affected the result.)
Inspector Morse once worked out that a murderer was posh because she said in an anonymous phone call "Remain there" instead of "Stay there."
Maybe it did colour the whole campaign: making the Leave "anti-establishment" bullshit resonate more. And nobody can be enthusiastic about "Remain". "Stay" would have been much better, and in a much closer register to "Leave", so obviously a more neutral question.
Words are malleable. "Stay" sounds like a command you would give a dog. Is that a good association for a campaign?
I do think Trump is toast. I have to be careful that this is not the wish fathering the thought - since his re-election is something I would find sad and depressing beyond measure - but I have conducted a rigorous internal audit and am satisfied that such is not the case. Four years of this will be enough for America. They will not have the stomach for another four. Whoever the Dems pick out of the leading contenders is the next POTUS, it is just a question of the margin. I think it will be comfortable, recession or no recession, and will be a landslide if there is one. And I hope the header is wrong about the possibility of Trump dodging the bullet by pulling out. That would be sub-optimal. The defeat is necessary to lance the boil and drain the pus.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
We haven’t left yet, dummy.
As has been explained many, many times the four quarter recession was forecast to immediately follow a Leave VOTE.
2.44 In both scenarios, a vote to leave the EU would result in a recession. Setting the shock scenario against the OBR’s Budget 2016 forecast, the analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into recession with four quarters of negative growth.
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Not really. The opposite of "Leave" is "Stay". So it should have been "Leave/Stay" or "Depart/Remain" if you want to use remain. "Leave/Remain" is obviously unfair as "Leave" is an emotional word and "remain" isn't. How many pop songs go "Remain with me"?
Remain is very much the U word. Which is no doubt why David Cameron didn't notice the implications of using it.
(Not that I think it would have really affected the result.)
I find it interesting how the Norman conquest still impacts today. IANE but I believe the roots of these words are:
Leave - Old English lǣfan Remain - Old French remanoir
Cameron should have chosen Depart (Old French) and Stay, to help his cause.
Stay has multiple roots in OF, OE, Old Dutch, Proto-Germanic and Latin according to wiktionary, and would thus have been a much better word to represent our common European roots.
PS What a great resource wiktionary is!
Churchill: “My method is simple. I like to use Anglo-Saxon words with the least number of syllables."
"This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held."
Can more than one election even happen under the US system?
Their system lends itself to utterly predictable elections. A civil war and two world wars haven't delayed an election and four presidential assasinations haven't bought an election forward. There's a few scenarios where it could I supposed be delayed, eruption of yellowstone and a nuclear strike but unless they took place in very early November or late October even those wouldn't stop there being a single US election in November. I can think of literally zero scenarios where there would be two elections.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
We haven’t left yet, dummy.
As has been explained many, many times the four quarter recession was forecast to immediately follow a Leave VOTE.
2.44 In both scenarios, a vote to leave the EU would result in a recession. Setting the shock scenario against the OBR’s Budget 2016 forecast, the analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into recession with four quarters of negative growth.
And as has been explained many, many times the bank responded with a drop in the interest rate and cranking up quantitative easing.
So, worst case scenarios are meaningless because the organs of Governmment will - without the need to spell it out - work to ameliorate the worst effects of such worst case scenarios?
Glad we've cleared that up about the No Deal disaster scenarios.
But....but....but......
What’s your point? The government should stand back and let the economy crash? Or is it that QE et al has no downside?
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Yes that went well did it not.
Well, if you want to Leave the United Kingdom, then yes, it went well.
Er... in what way did it go well? We haven't left yet and still might not.
What we have had is 3 years of nothing but Brexit dominating the political discourse. No action to speak of on major issues like social care, the state of public services, the environment, crime, drugs... all because Brexit dominates everything.
And it will be as naught compared to the SINDY negotiations.
But Malc wants to win a referendum on Leaving the UK. The rest is details.
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
That chart is just highly concentrated essence of political smugness.
It is still true both in detail and in its overarching point. Nazis and fascists are a clear danger to our civilisation as we know from history and all measures are appropriate to halt their spread, including confronting them with force - especially if the state is unwilling to do so itself.
Oh just shut up. It is contemptible and dangerous on both sides.
Wahey, the spirit of Gav the fireplace salesman lives on.
Of course only one side has the POTUS tweeting supportively and attacking their critics, and only one side seems to be actually killing anyone. Still, what's wrong with a bit of moral relativism now and again?
What question will be put to voters has been contentious since the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was published in May. The bill said that, if the proposed question had already been assessed by the commission, it should not have to be assessed again.
This would exclude the commission’s involvement in the same question as 2014 – “Should Scotland be an Independent Country?”
The commission has since ruled out a Yes/No question in the Brexit referendum, instead recommending a Remain/Leave question. This was found to be more balanced after fresh evidence was taken.
A change from Yes/No to a Leave/Remain question could damage the pro-independence movement, with the Yes campaign widely seen as having been successful in conveying a positive message in 2014.
Unionists bricking it and will go to any lengths to stop democracy.
Nats terrified they won’t be able to rig it again.....
The format of the Brexit question seems perfectly reasonable....
Yes that went well did it not.
Well, if you want to Leave the United Kingdom, then yes, it went well.
Er... in what way did it go well? We haven't left yet and still might not.
What we have had is 3 years of nothing but Brexit dominating the political discourse. No action to speak of on major issues like social care, the state of public services, the environment, crime, drugs... all because Brexit dominates everything.
And it will be as naught compared to the SINDY negotiations.
But Malc wants to win a referendum on Leaving the UK. The rest is details.
Negotiation difficulties should not I think be the main reason people should or should not do something they would like to do, but it is rather strange how the difficulties are therefore ignored as irrelevant, when as the last 3 years have proven the very fact of that difficulty in reality can lead people to change their mind on the original question, which can be very very relevant in a matter which is already closely decided.
I do think Trump is toast. I have to be careful that this is not the wish fathering the thought - since his re-election is something I would find sad and depressing beyond measure - but I have conducted a rigorous internal audit and am satisfied that such is not the case. Four years of this will be enough for America. They will not have the stomach for another four. Whoever the Dems pick out of the leading contenders is the next POTUS, it is just a question of the margin. I think it will be comfortable, recession or no recession, and will be a landslide if there is one. And I hope the header is wrong about the possibility of Trump dodging the bullet by pulling out. That would be sub-optimal. The defeat is necessary to lance the boil and drain the pus.
I think you and the header underestimate Trump’s will to win and the legal apparatus he has assembled at federal circuit and SCOTUS level to enable it. Put simply, if he can stop Democrat-leaning demographics from voting in key states, he will win. And many of those states are GOP controlled.
"This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held."
Can more than one election even happen under the US system?
Their system lends itself to utterly predictable elections. A civil war and two world wars haven't delayed an election and four presidential assasinations haven't bought an election forward. There's a few scenarios where it could I supposed be delayed, eruption of yellowstone and a nuclear strike but unless they took place in very early November or late October even those wouldn't stop there being a single US election in November. I can think of literally zero scenarios where there would be two elections.
Of course the World Wars impacted the US significantly differently to the UK. The Civil War was the biggest war in American history and it occured at a time when universal suffrage was much less than now and the Electoral College much more meaningful than now.
This can’t be true, because @another_richard keeps telling us it is Project Fear.
Its good to see that I'm always on your mind.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
It didn't happen because the Bank of England acted to stave off the worst of the forecast events.
lol
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
Economic forecasting takes the current situation and then assesses likely outcomes were an event. It does not and did not then include contingent events.
Actually credible forcasting does and should include contingent events . . . especially contingent events in the forecasters control!
The BoE forecast a base rate increase immediately following a vote to leave. They didn't forecast an immediate cut or lack of action.
I think that's where you show the limitations of your economic training. NIESR, which compiled those forecasts, is full of people dare I say better qualified than you to make those decisions.
Better qualified to determine that there would be a BoE base rate increase, when actually there was a BoE base rate decrease?
Comments
Mr. kle4, it'll be pored over by historians how the two sides co-operate to kill off the middle ground.
Even that definition of Fascism is wrong.
Strictly speaking it’s defined as an ideology based on struggle that envisages complete mobilisation of society under a strong leader - who rejects democracy- where the identity and rights of the individual are subsumed by those of the nation as a whole, as embodied by the dictator.
https://twitter.com/spinninghugo/status/1163356371577970689?s=21
Perhaps you'd like to show me where the four quarter recession the Treasury predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote occurred.
An effort to stop No Deal Brexit will very likely fail for the simple reason that all parties are (still) far more interested in pursuing narrow party political advantage than really working together to stop it.
Whether you like Boris or not he is fixated on going for Bust. It will be No Deal and then an election.
I understand people are believe "the left" hates free speech, but again, saying you're against hate speech is not that thing. I understand people like to believe "PC culture" is a real argument, and apparently the left are feelings based and the right are facts based, but all I see is the right making arguments from culture, history and identity (feelings) and the centre / left making arguments based on the data, what experts say and trends (facts).
Also, there may be some people in Labour who dislike Jews. This is not "the left". In fact, many antifa members are Jews because, and this may surprise you, the words "never forget" kinda mean something to them. They are aware where fascism leads.
Also also, when did being "antifascist" make you a leftist? Aren't we all supposed to be against fascists? Do we not think that keeping these thugs away from the levers of power is important? Just because we are a liberal democracy, doesn't mean we should allow people who argue in favour of genocide to be allowed to do that. You wouldn't allow a hook handed imam to stand on a platform of "kill all Jews"; just because it's a well groomed white guy in a suit, doesn't mean we should take him seriously.
Trump dropping out is one of the most unlikeliest things in politics I have ever heard frankly.
Scaramucci has failed to notice that the only way Trump believes he will lose is if the election is rigged and stolen by the elite deep state and, in that case, he will refuse to stand down and trigger absolute constitutional mayhem and civil unrest.
Bannon is far more on the button with this. He was saying the other day that the end will come for Trump one day possibly in 2020 and it will be very very messy and very unseemly.
They had the former head of the pharmaceutical trade body on and were pushing him on no deal preparations
He basically said that they had had a huge amount of interaction with government, that plans were in place and it was all well organised.
The only thing he pointed out was that in March the government was working with industry to maintain 6 weeks surplus inventory as a safety stock but this time companies are making their own arrangement. (It’s worth noting that usual shelf life on pharma products is 2 years, so if the NHS held extra inventory in March they could maintain that until November with no problem - I assume but don’t know that this is what has been done)
And nobody can be enthusiastic about "Remain". "Stay" would have been much better, and in a much closer register to "Leave", so obviously a more neutral question.
and of course they couldnt have said upfront we will take corrective action
they simply undermine their credibility
jeez
As long as it’s a belief I disagree with?
The BoE forecast a base rate increase immediately following a vote to leave. They didn't forecast an immediate cut or lack of action.
economic forecasting is an activity where most people get it wrong and those who get it right rarely repeat the trick. We struggle to forecast accurately 12 months ahead anything beyond that is simply hope or fiction.
And as you point out there are so many variables there is not much point taking them seriously. It's a guess its not a fact.
It’s an “interesting” management concept to claim that there is no point forecasting more than 12 months out. I thought your troll schtick was to rail against short termism.
Labour would be in a ground-floor negotiation for re-admittance. They seem to think that the EU would just ride up to them on unicorns, beckoning them in. No, they would have somebody like Barnier, tasked with ensuring that if we came back, that we would be good little Europeans, massively shackled to prevent us departing ever again. And paying a heavy price - bye bye opt outs, bye bye rebates. I suspect that everyone having seen that Article 50 is a shit-show, there would be pressure to amend the rules to lock everybody in.
And signing us up to that lot that would - politically at least - need another UK referendum. And many millions of us would not wear it.
budgets are as much about management negotiating the terms of their bonus as they are about forecasting. Most budgets likewise end up being wrong.
The issue on forecasting\budgetting is to make people think about the key issues in their business and what they are going to do about them rather than hitting an arbitrary number.
'Leave' is pretty doggy commandy, so...
85 on Pence taking over the presidency from Trump might possibly be value but not by much.
I think it is hard to see Pence as the winner of the election. If Trump doesn't stand then it is beacuse he thinks he cannot win the election. As Pence was on the same 2016 Ticket, he will struggle to do much better than Trump, and the Republicans will almost certainly choose a different candidate.
"This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held."
Can more than one election even happen under the US system?
It is the control experienced by the driver as he holds fast to the wheel...even though he has just snapped it off the steering shaft.
2.44 In both scenarios, a vote to leave the EU would result in a recession. Setting the shock scenario against the OBR’s Budget 2016 forecast, the analysis shows that immediately following a vote to leave the EU, the economy would be pushed into recession with four quarters of negative growth.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
Remain never considered that the UK had been subliminally trained by Barbara Woodhouse.
Just a couple of observations so far - first, Boris Johnson is so fortunate in having Jeremy Corbyn as LOTO. If Johnson wants to have an election, Corbyn will oblige. Once again I'm puzzled by Labour's positioning on this - let's say Corbyn gets his election and wins. What then? I can only presume he doesn't care - the socialist re-making of Britain will occur whether we are in the EU or not and indeed leaving without a WA makes it easier.
Those who argue for sovereignty or the taking back of control will doubtless applaud Corbyn's ability to re-make Britain and it will be as though the last 40 years had never happened. I've always thought Corbyn thinks he can win if he could speak to every elector individually but the polls suggest whatever magic he once had has gone.
Second, picking up from the weekend banter. There is no majority in Parliament for a No Deal exit but that doesn't equate to a majority to Remain. The "BIg G-ers" (so to speak) are those who still want the WA to pass and that does meet the key criteria of getting us out of the EU and respecting the 23/6/16 result. The problem is a lot of people don't like the WA for various reasons (that probably means it's a good Deal but that doesn't matter).
The problem is those wanting to remain (revoke) and those wanting to leave with a WA are only united in wanting to stop us leaving without a WA. Neither position can command a majority in the Commons (which is why No Deal Brexit is going to happen) and neither side seems willing to give ground. The polarisation of views means those wanting us to Remain are happy to ignore the 23/6/16 referendum while those wanting us to leave without a WA are uncaring as to the economic damage, dislocation and cost of mitigation (which has paralysed Government and meant other work hasn't been done).
Leave - Old English lǣfan
Remain - Old French remanoir
Cameron should have chosen Depart (Old French) and Stay, to help his cause.
Stay has multiple roots in OF, OE, Old Dutch, Proto-Germanic and Latin according to wiktionary, and would thus have been a much better word to represent our common European roots.
PS What a great resource wiktionary is!
Of course both sides losing is a relatively rare outcome, and there usually comes a point when one has to choose the lesser of two evils (the Brexit WWII nostalgists seem to forget that their favourite world war evvah epitomised that).
So the opposite would be a Sprinter?
Glad we've cleared that up about the No Deal disaster scenarios.
But....but....but......
Er... in what way did it go well? We haven't left yet and still might not.
What we have had is 3 years of nothing but Brexit dominating the political discourse. No action to speak of on major issues like social care, the state of public services, the environment, crime, drugs... all because Brexit dominates everything.
Don't seek to become the monster you seek to defeat. The solution to fascism isn't to become authoritarian yourself in opposition to it. It is to cherish our liberal values - the sanctity of free speech and freedom from violence.
And if a 0.25% decrease in interest rates had such an effect why didn't two 0.25% increases in interest rates then cause recessions ?
There's a few scenarios where it could I supposed be delayed, eruption of yellowstone and a nuclear strike but unless they took place in very early November or late October even those wouldn't stop there being a single US election in November.
I can think of literally zero scenarios where there would be two elections.
The government should stand back and let the economy crash? Or is it that QE et al has no downside?
But Malc wants to win a referendum on Leaving the UK. The rest is details.
Of course only one side has the POTUS tweeting supportively and attacking their critics, and only one side seems to be actually killing anyone. Still, what's wrong with a bit of moral relativism now and again?