For anyone who wants to know more about my insurance company, its website is here: https://just.insure
Determining whether someone is driving as well as the safety of their driving on the basis of phone data must be something of a challenge, I'd have thought! And what if their phone dies? Would they then be unable to drive legally?
There are a lot of amazing way's we're using phones to gauge accident risk.
For example...
1. One 18 year old man in a car is a lot less likely to have an accident than five 18 year old men.
2. People who use their horn a lot are more likely to have accidents.
3. Speeding when on a motorway when the road is empty and the conditions are good isn't very dangerous. Speeding when it's dark and rainy and there's lots of traffic is.
4. People who speed up with traffic lights go yellow are also more dangerous.
5. Driving home from work at 11pm probably isn't dangerous. Driving home from a bar probably is.
We have about 40 measures of driver safety (i.e. bahviour) and another 12 measures of road safety (i.e conditions). And risk factors are multiplicative, not additive.
How do you determine if your driver is in fact driving, rather than just a passenger?
Like many millenials Fox jr doesn't have a car, but borrowing one from me for a weekend trip might be a good market for your insurance. On the one hand there is slight risk from an occasional driver being less experienced, but on the other hand presumably the real speed freaks are permanent drivers.
Labour will be saying good riddance to bad rubbish. He was part of their small, nasty BritNat wing. Although few in number, these vocal idgits have trashed the entire Labour brand in Scotland.
I think you're in for a surprise and will discover that the likes of Tom Harris speak for rather more scots than you seem to realise...
Surprised? Err... no. You’d have to have spent the last two decades living on a crannog in Loch Tay not to know that:
- SLab is riddled with narrow-minded British Nationalists - SLab rats are deserting the sinking ship
New poll from Kantar, 7-11 Nov Con 37% -2 Lab 27% +2 Lib Dem 17% -1 Brexit 9% +1 Green 3% ±0 (Change since 10-15 Oct) New squeeze question & imputation model https://t.co/kKtUNT8hte
Note methodology change. Without, it would have been 42/28 suggesting tactical voting is a thing
Another poll with the LDs in the 15-17% band. My certainty that they will end up outside that band grows with each new poll.
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Is the plan to bundle up high insurance risks with low insurance risks and then sell them under a wrapper to the investment community?
That’s reinsurance.
Specifically, it's catastrophe bonds. I'd like to say the insurance industry have a far better idea what we're doing than the bankers did, but who knows.
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
Welcome to PB, and a good spot about the PPB.
A great example of something that appears at first glance to be quite informal and off-the-cuff, but actually has had a lot of thought put into it. I imagine we'll be seeing a lot more of this style from all the parties during the campaign.
I mean, it depends on the treatment and remuneration of your staff.
If you (owner, top dog, etc) are paying everyone minimum wage to enact your idea that you can't enact alone, but paying them a wage they can't live on, or putting them in conditions that are bad, the service may be a useful one, but I would argue you are still benefiting from the misfortune of others, just the workers not the customer. (This isn't saying you would do that, just as a point).
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
This is meant to a comment on the nature of capitalism and not a personal attack on what sounds like a potentially good idea in the morally dubious business of legally necessary but only privately accessible insurance.
Yes his contribution is more valuable than others. It is his idea, his initiative. He is taking the risk in developing the business. An employee puts in effort and gets renumerated, a business owner puts in their own savings to seed the business as well as his own ideas and effort and they could lose everything they put into the business.
There is no moral ambiguity unless you're dogmatic.
So an idea is of higher value than the labour required to make that idea a reality? How can we prove that? In a follow up post I accepted that "risk" might have value, but what if that value of risk is paid off in the first few years of the business, is it still equitable to continue making more money than other workers required for the functioning of the business?
I mean, I'm interested in this both from the perspective of being a lefty, and as someone who has done creative ROI using social value methods (giving monetary values to intangible things, or to things that do not generally get bought and sold).
I can accept, in principle, that being the person to have an idea for a business has a value. I can accept, too, that willingness to risk existing capital has a value (which would be dependent on many other things, such as the level of capital that person has to risk, etc). Where I think I start disagreeing is the suggestion that the person who does all that is due a permanently higher wage. A higher wage over a period of time to equal the value of the initial risk? Sure, why not. But the other workers are necessary to the business' success as well, and their contribution is not significantly worth less than just the originator of the idea.
Again, I was not trying to be personal about this, more theoretical.
Labour will be saying good riddance to bad rubbish. He was part of their small, nasty BritNat wing. Although few in number, these vocal idgits have trashed the entire Labour brand in Scotland.
I think you're in for a surprise and will discover that the likes of Tom Harris speak for rather more scots than you seem to realise...
Surprised? Err... no. You’d have to have spent the last two decades living on a crannog in Loch Tay not to know that:
- SLab is riddled with narrow-minded British Nationalists - SLab rats are deserting the sinking ship
"Narrow -minded british nationalists"?!
Well i suppose that's better than being an even more narrow-minded scottish nationalist...
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
And Boris's favourite bands were also interesting. The Clash gives him some punk, anti-establishment cred. The Rolling Stones are very no nonsense, get up and go, but also have a kind of venerability and professionalism. The thinking is clear.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
One person's Non Tariff Barrier is another person's sovereign right to decide on food standards.
This, of course, is where US trade negotiations will fall down. The US will require us to accept GM crops, and will also prevent us from labeling said crops as GM.
Johnson will push hard for it, and it will be really unpopular. (With both his own party and the country at large.)
We won't get a trade deal with the US. There's no political will for it outside of a few hardcore Tories. I'm not even sure that Bozza will push the angle other than as a distraction if the EU trade talks aren't going well.
I think Johnson genuinely does want to reorient the UK away from Europe and towards the US. I just don't think he realises the compromises that will be necessary to achieve such a pivot.
No Boris just wants an equal relationship with both, hence his Deal enables FTA talks with the EU and the US.
By contrast the LDs want to stay in the EU and oppose a US FTA and the Brexit Party back no Deal and oppose a FTA the EU will agree to, so it is actually Farage who wishes to reorient us towards the US, indeed Farage is closer to Trump than Boris is.
Corbyn of course wants a closer relationship with Cuba and Venezuela and Russia than either the EU or the US
We cannot have an equal relationship with huge trading blocs because we are not a huge trading bloc. We are a smallish sized island with an economy that punches way above our geography partly due to our history and partly due to leveraging our membership of the closest large trading bloc.
The US as a trading bloc has no reason to consider us an equal; what do we produce that they need to buy? Pretty much nothing except our assets. Whereas they have many goods they want to sell: wormy pork, chlorinated chicken, houseware produced by prison labour that will undercut our prices. Lots of stuff that will be sub current health and safety standards of products sold in the UK or cheaper than current products manufactured in the UK due to worse worker conditions (or both).
The US is our largest single export destination and the EU our largest multinational export destination, we need trade deals with both
We will have to make a choice about which market is most important to us. There is no way around that.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
One person's Non Tariff Barrier is another person's sovereign right to decide on food standards.
This, of course, is where US trade negotiations will fall down. The US will require us to accept GM crops, and will also prevent us from labeling said crops as GM.
Johnson will push hard for it, and it will be really unpopular. (With both his own party and the country at large.)
We won't get a trade deal with the US. There's no political will for it outside of a few hardcore Tories. I'm not even sure that Bozza will push the angle other than as a distraction if the EU trade talks aren't going well.
I think Johnson genuinely does want to reorient the UK away from Europe and towards the US. I just don't think he realises the compromises that will be necessary to achieve such a pivot.
No Boris just wants an equal relationship with both, hence his Deal enables FTA talks with the EU and the US.
By contrast the LDs want to stay in the EU and oppose a US FTA and the Brexit Party back no Deal and oppose a FTA the EU will agree to, so it is actually Farage who wishes to reorient us towards the US, indeed Farage is closer to Trump than Boris is.
Corbyn of course wants a closer relationship with Cuba and Venezuela and Russia than either the EU or the US
We cannot have an equal relationship with huge trading blocs because we are not a huge trading bloc. We are a smallish sized island with an economy that punches way above our geography partly due to our history and partly due to leveraging our membership of the closest large trading bloc.
The US as a trading bloc has no reason to consider us an equal; what do we produce that they need to buy? Pretty much nothing except our assets. Whereas they have many goods they want to sell: wormy pork, chlorinated chicken, houseware produced by prison labour that will undercut our prices. Lots of stuff that will be sub current health and safety standards of products sold in the UK or cheaper than current products manufactured in the UK due to worse worker conditions (or both).
The US is our largest single export destination and the EU our largest multinational export destination, we need trade deals with both
We will have to make a choice about which market is most important to us. There is no way around that.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
How many exiting countries have negotiated a deal though?
The EU will not want any more trade disruption. I am fairly bullish that a deal can be fast-tracked.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
How many exiting countries have negotiated a deal though?
The EU will not want any more trade disruption. I am fairly bullish that a deal can be fast-tracked.
A deal can absolutely be done. The issue is what kind of deal.
One person's Non Tariff Barrier is another person's sovereign right to decide on food standards.
This, of course, is where US trade negotiations will fall down. The US will require us to accept GM crops, and will also prevent us from labeling said crops as GM.
Johnson will push hard for it, and it will be really unpopular. (With both his own party and the country at large.)
We won't get a trade deal with the US. There's no political will for it outside of a few hardcore Tories. I'm not even sure that Bozza will push the angle other than as a distraction if the EU trade talks aren't going well.
I think Johnson genuinely does want to reorient the UK away from Europe and towards the US. I just don't think he realises the compromises that will be necessary to achieve such a pivot.
No Boris just wants an equal relationship with both, hence his Deal enables FTA talks with the EU and the US.
By contrast the LDs want to stay in the EU and oppose a US FTA and the Brexit Party back no Deal and oppose a FTA the EU will agree to, so it is actually Farage who wishes to reorient us towards the US, indeed Farage is closer to Trump than Boris is.
Corbyn of course wants a closer relationship with Cuba and Venezuela and Russia than either the EU or the US
We cannot have an equal relationship with huge trading blocs because we are not a huge trading bloc. We are a smallish sized island with an economy that punches way above our geography partly due to our history and partly due to leveraging our membership of the closest large trading bloc.
The Uo worse worker conditions (or both).
The US is our largest single export destination and the EU our largest multinational export destination, we need trade deals with both
We will have to make a choice about which market is most important to us. There is no way around that.
Yes there is, get deals with both. Job done.
Deals in and of themselves are meaningless. It's what they enable and inhibit that matters.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
Can you name me one country that is negotiating a more distant relationship with its biggest market ? Your point only stands if the Tories wanted to remain closely aligned , they don’t so current parity is irrelevant.
One person's Non Tariff Barrier is another person's sovereign right to decide on food standards.
This, of course, is where US trade negotiations will fall down. The US will require us to accept GM crops, and will also prevent us from labeling said crops as GM.
Johnson will push hard for it, and it will be really unpopular. (With both his own party and the country at large.)
We won't get a trade deal with the US. There's no political will for it outside of a few hardcore Tories. I'm not even sure that Bozza will push the angle other than as a distraction if the EU trade talks aren't going well.
I think Johnson genuinely does want to reorient the UK away from Europe and towards the US. I just don't think he realises the compromises that will be necessary to achieve such a pivot.
No Boris just wants an equal relationship with both, hence his Deal enables FTA talks with the EU and the US.
By contrast the LDs want to stay in the EU and oppose a US FTA and the Brexit Party back no Deal and oppose a FTA the EU will agree to, so it is actually Farage who wishes to reorient us towards the US, indeed Farage is closer to Trump than Boris is.
Corbyn of course wants a closer relationship with Cuba and Venezuela and Russia than either the EU or the US
We cannot have an equal relationship with huge trading blocs because we are not a huge trading bloc. We are a smallish sized island with an economy that punches way above our geography partly due to our history and partly due to leveraging our membership of the closest large trading bloc.
The Uo worse worker conditions (or both).
The US is our largest single export destination and the EU our largest multinational export destination, we need trade deals with both
We will have to make a choice about which market is most important to us. There is no way around that.
Yes there is, get deals with both. Job done.
Deals in and of themselves are meaningless. It's what they enable and inhibit that matters.
And we should get deals that enable us to trade as frictionless as possible with both exporting what meets the other parties markets regulations without tariffs or quotas.
One person's Non Tariff Barrier is another person's sovereign right to decide on food standards.
This, of course, is where US trade negotiations will fall down. The US will require us to accept GM crops, and will also prevent us from labeling said crops as GM.
Johnson will push hard for it, and it will be really unpopular. (With both his own party and the country at large.)
We won't get a trade deal with the US. There's no political will for it outside of a few hardcore Tories. I'm not even sure that Bozza will push the angle other than as a distraction if the EU trade talks aren't going well.
I think Johnson genuinely does want to reorient the UK away from Europe and towards the US. I just don't think he realises the compromises that will be necessary to achieve such a pivot.
No Boris just wants an equal relationship with both, hence his Deal enables FTA talks with the EU and the US.
By contrast the LDs want to stay in the EU and oppose a US FTA and the Brexit Party back no Deal and oppose a FTA the EU will agree to, so it is actually Farage who wishes to reorient us towards the US, indeed Farage is closer to Trump than Boris is.
Corbyn of course wants a closer relationship with Cuba and Venezuela and Russia than either the EU or the US
We cannot have an equal relationship with huge trading blocs because we are not a huge trading bloc. We are a smallish sized island with an economy that punches way above our geography partly due to our history and partly due to leveraging our membership of the closest large trading bloc.
The US as a trading bloc has no reason to consider us an equal; what do we produce that they need to buy? Pretty much nothing except our assets. Whereas they have many goods they want to sell: wormy pork, chlorinated chicken, houseware produced by prison labour that will undercut our prices. Lots of stuff that will be sub current health and safety standards of products sold in the UK or cheaper than current products manufactured in the UK due to worse worker conditions (or both).
The US is our largest single export destination and the EU our largest multinational export destination, we need trade deals with both
Yes, but those trade deals will not be "equal", as you said. We will be the significantly lesser partner.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
Can you name one contry that has negotaed an all-encompassing trade deal with the European Union an then had it endorsed in every EU member state within 11 months?
Neither has ever been done. What happens if a deal is not agreed, Philip?
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
And Boris's favourite bands were also interesting. The Clash gives him some punk, anti-establishment cred. The Rolling Stones are very no nonsense, get up and go, but also have a kind of venerability and professionalism. The thinking is clear.
I can imagine London Calling being played loud and often by the former Mayor. Maybe he bought the water cannon for the White Riot. After the Supreme Court ruling though, I can't see him playing I Fought The Law so much....
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
The American Dream is one of those phrases that means, as Humpty Dumpty advocated, whatever the user wants it to mean.
There was a rather more serious point to my comment, Alastair. Which is that America is a dog-eats-dog land. The innate propensity to tread on people's heads to get to the top has been accentuated in the last few years. The tenuous social web has all but disintegrated.
I was shocked last time I was there earlier this year. Really, really, shocked. Homeless everywhere, or they would be if the authorities weren't busing them in from the suburbs and outlying towns into the city centres so that the inhabitants of wisteria lanes don't have to view them. New York metros and even mainline stations are places of routine fights amongst homeless who are often drunk or high.
The place is hell. I wouldn't live there if you paid me a fortune to do so. And this is what we want to emulate? God help us.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Pulpstar's excellent recent article was about how we are prisoners of the past when analysing this election. In a similar way Johnson is a prisoner of the past in that he is determined not to make the same mistakes as May.
That is why he is making the commitment on the date, to keep the ERG onside. It has nothing to do with winning the election.
When anticipating his approach to the trade negotiations with the EU then that is also the key factor to keep in mind. He will not break with the ERG. I think that's the calculation that Gauke has made that has led him to declare against a Conservative majority government.
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Good luck with the business, but as someone who was an underwriting director with a big motor book I have seen many such attempts. Even Mike Brockman (who I rate as the best retail actuary of them all and a good eneough entrepreneur to make a fortune) never cracked it. A specific part of the problem with your model is that you will need to not only reduce the general price (which can be done in a few ways such as telematics/cover restrictions etc) but also mitigate the excess risk associated with poor people. I am sure posters will object, but affluence (measured by any one of various criteria such as credit score or demographic classification and analysed by GLM or GNLM) is a significant factor in risk (ignoring all other factors, the poorer you are the worse your risk. The only way I can see of managing this factor is to introduce an element of public pool into risk pricing (as is done for flood in the UK).
Well, we'll soon find out. Worth remembering, though, that one of the reasons lower income consumers are bad risks is because of the high level of delinquencies. Someone enters into a 12 month contract and pays month one and two, and then doesn't pay month three... The insurer (in most US states, and I'm sure in the UK too) is still on the hook for a few weeks while they threaten and cajole. Our prepay model doesn't have that risk, which means we should have fewer miles we're insuring for which we're not being paid.
Not in the UK. You can run the GLMs over annually paid (prepay) or instalment business and get the same result for affluence as a risk factor. The choice of annual or instalments is an additional risk factor over and above affluence (instalment business has higher risk even after taking account of defaults). This may vary by market, but I have seen similar analyses for many markets including the US and most major European markets, and they produce effects in the same direction (but with varying effect size). I worked for an insurer with 70+ motor books globally, and we looked closely for local lessons through a global HO technical unit that I was attached to for periods. Maybe there is a way through - but we never found it.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
Can you name one contry that has negotaed an all-encompassing trade deal with the European Union an then had it endorsed in every EU member state within 11 months?
Neither has ever been done. What happens if a deal is not agreed, Philip?
A deal will be agreed, it is in all parties interests.
The EU also has the ability to fudge implementation of deals and implement them even if ratification is dragging in a country even though there's no reason that should happen.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
Can you name a country that has negotiated a Deal where divergence on regulations, Tarrifs an NTBs was the aim, rather than convergence?
The latest YouGov poll also has the Con vote going up 3% and the Con lead going up 1% if BXP stood down in half the seats, so it is pointing to a smaller net change in the lead without the BXP standing anywhere and with other methodological changes of about 2%. However, the YouGov change is the smaller of the two probably because there are other methological change in the YouGov poll for Sky News that are likely to have boosted the Lab vote share. In addition to removing 317 BXP candidates, YouGov also appear to have changed to emphasising the local candidate, and also removed Remain Alliance parties standing down. I would expect many long standing Labour MPs to have be able to disassociate themselves to a degree from the taint of Corbyn's extremism, if so the focus on local candidates will help them. The absence of Green candidates will also help Labour as well as the LDs. So the overall changes in the YouGov poll will conflate the impact of partial BXP stand downs with other changes which mitigate the impact on the Con lead.
Thus Sky News commented in their poll write up (and they have the full data) that: "The poll records that almost all people who would have voted for the Brexit Party but are no longer able to - and have made up their mind - will transfer their vote to the Conservatives" and "Overall, this suggests that when people are asked about the race in their individual constituency, Tories benefit from the Brexit Party vote in areas they are not standing while Labour benefits from tactical voting and enthusiasm for the local candidate."
One person's Non Tariff Barrier is another person's sovereign right to decide on food standards.
This, of course, is where US trade negotiations will fall down. The US will require us to accept GM crops, and will also prevent us from labeling said crops as GM.
Johnson will push hard for it, and it will be really unpopular. (With both his own party and the country at large.)
We well.
I think Johnson genuinely does want to reorient the UK away from Europe and towards the US. I just don't think he realises the compromises that will be necessary to achieve such a pivot.
No Boris just wants an equal relationship with both, hence his Deal enables FTA talks with the EU and the US.
By Trump than Boris is.
Corbyn of course wants a closer relationship with Cuba and Venezuela and Russia than either the EU or the US
We cannot have an equal relationship with huge trading blocs because we are not a huge trading bloc. We are a smallish sized island with an economy that punches way above our geography partly due to our history and partly due to leveraging our membership of the closest large trading bloc.
The Uo worse worker conditions (or both).
The US is our largest single export destination and the EU our largest multinational export destination, we need trade deals with both
We will have to make a choice about which market is most important to us. There is no way around that.
Yes there is, get deals with both. Job done.
Deals in and of themselves are meaningless. It's what they enable and inhibit that matters.
And we should get deals that enable us to trade as frictionless as possible with both exporting what meets the other parties markets regulations without tariffs or quotas.
That can be done with both.
"As possible" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
And Boris's favourite bands were also interesting. The Clash gives him some punk, anti-establishment cred. The Rolling Stones are very no nonsense, get up and go, but also have a kind of venerability and professionalism. The thinking is clear.
I can imagine London Calling being played loud and often by the former Mayor. Maybe he bought the water cannon for the White Riot. After the Supreme Court ruling though, I can't see him playing I Fought The Law so much....
After the Supreme Court ruling he could rightly say I fought the law and the law won.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
Can you name one contry that has negotaed an all-encompassing trade deal with the European Union an then had it endorsed in every EU member state within 11 months?
Neither has ever been done. What happens if a deal is not agreed, Philip?
A deal will be agreed, it is in all parties interests.
You think Johnson will capitulate to the EU's red lines again?
Excellent commentary. And it is equally true of Scotland where the SNP Government has slashed the budgets of councils despite the benefits of the Barnett Formula which should have protected them. Always easier for Govts to spend on their pet projects when you can blame hapless councils for local cuts.
The corollary is central Government, when it has cash to spend, enjoys having control of where and how it is spent citing accountability so we get a creeping centralisation of local Government as he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The other aspect, as we've seen before, is when the borrowing gets too high and the wheels come off the debt wagon, it's mush easier to slash public spending than raise taxes.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
Can you name one contry that has negotaed an all-encompassing trade deal with the European Union an then had it endorsed in every EU member state within 11 months?
Neither has ever been done. What happens if a deal is not agreed, Philip?
A deal will be agreed, it is in all parties interests.
The EU also has the ability to fudge implementation of deals and implement them even if ratification is dragging in a country even though there's no reason that should happen.
Yes, a deal can be agreed. The issue is what is in the deal and the impact it will have on jobs and investments in the UK. The choice for Johnson remains the same: what keeps the Tory party together or what is best for the UK.
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
And Boris's favourite bands were also interesting. The Clash gives him some punk, anti-establishment cred. The Rolling Stones are very no nonsense, get up and go, but also have a kind of venerability and professionalism. The thinking is clear.
I can imagine London Calling being played loud and often by the former Mayor. Maybe he bought the water cannon for the White Riot. After the Supreme Court ruling though, I can't see him playing I Fought The Law so much....
I think "Something about England" must be a Brexiteer favourite. It seems little has changed since 1981 with its themes, but that was perhaps its message:
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
Apologies, I keep messing up the blockquotes when going over the character limit.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
Can you name a country that has negotiated a Deal where divergence on regulations, Tarrifs an NTBs was the aim, rather than convergence?
No but the former is much easier than the latter.
When you are negotiating where divergence is the aim then simplisticly all that needs to be negotiated is an agreement on what is being diverged in the future and how to cope with that.
Where you are negotiating on convergence you need to negotiate what will remain diverged and hope to cope with that [same as above] and what will be converged, how it will converge, whose standards it will converge to and how, on what timescale it will converge by etc
We don't need to negotiate anything after the and.
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
Nice first post. Following your insight, it seems to be aimed more at men than women?
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Pulpstar's excellent recent article was about how we are prisoners of the past when analysing this election. In a similar way Johnson is a prisoner of the past in that he is determined not to make the same mistakes as May.
That is why he is making the commitment on the date, to keep the ERG onside. It has nothing to do with winning the election.
When anticipating his approach to the trade negotiations with the EU then that is also the key factor to keep in mind. He will not break with the ERG. I think that's the calculation that Gauke has made that has led him to declare against a Conservative majority government.
I agree that Johnson is a prisoner of the ERG, though prisoner is the wrong term - he will happily do anything if it means him being PM. However, he only got into bed with the ERG in the first palce because he calculated that was the best way for him to advance. Dropping the ERG would have meant going to war with the party membership and losing the election.
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
You've never heard of Country of Origin?
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
Can you name a country that has negotiated a Deal where divergence on regulations, Tarrifs an NTBs was the aim, rather than convergence?
No but the former is much easier than the latter.
When you are negotiating where divergence is the aim then simplisticly all that needs to be negotiated is an agreement on what is being diverged in the future and how to cope with that.
Where you are negotiating on convergence you need to negotiate what will remain diverged and hope to cope with that [same as above] and what will be converged, how it will converge, whose standards it will converge to and how, on what timescale it will converge by etc
We don't need to negotiate anything after the and.
Yes we do, because we're leaving the institutions that manage the convergence. There's no default option of just carrying on as we are now, unless we stay within those structures.
I thought car insurance was very little about how one drove but more about the car and where one lived. The risk of getting one's vehicle damaged or stolen seems to be a large factor in determining how much you pay in premium. I don't have a garage and live in a high-crime area - I suspect if I had a garage and lived in a low-crime area I'd pay less. That has nothing to do with how and when I drive the car.
A 991.2 GT3 RS (The Dura Ace dream car) parked on a street in Southwark is not at any risk of causing an accident but it's chance of being stolen is 100%.
I can only get car insurance by being a named driver on a policy in my wife's name. I cannot get motorcycle insurance at any price. LOL, I suppose.
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
You've never heard of Country of Origin?
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
Indeed. It's why the kind of deal Johnson seems to be envisioning is going to be so damaging for so much of UK manufacturing.
The latest YouGov poll also has the Con vote going up 3% and the Con lead going up 1% if BXP stood down in half the seats, so it is pointing to a smaller net change in the lead without the BXP standing anywhere and with other methodological changes of about 2%. However, the YouGov change is the smaller of the two probably because there are other methological change in the YouGov poll for Sky News that are likely to have boosted the Lab vote share. In addition to removing 317 BXP candidates, YouGov also appear to have changed to emphasising the local candidate, and also removed Remain Alliance parties standing down. I would expect many long standing Labour MPs to have be able to disassociate themselves to a degree from the taint of Corbyn's extremism, if so the focus on local candidates will help them. The absence of Green candidates will also help Labour as well as the LDs. So the overall changes in the YouGov poll will conflate the impact of partial BXP stand downs with other changes which mitigate the impact on the Con lead.
Thus Sky News commented in their poll write up (and they have the full data) that: "The poll records that almost all people who would have voted for the Brexit Party but are no longer able to - and have made up their mind - will transfer their vote to the Conservatives" and "Overall, this suggests that when people are asked about the race in their individual constituency, Tories benefit from the Brexit Party vote in areas they are not standing while Labour benefits from tactical voting and enthusiasm for the local candidate."
I can confirm that YouGov are asking both a general question about VI and a specific question about VI in the relevant constituency with the named PPCs where they have it.
This is why I disagree with the claim earlier this morning that this was YouGov applying a tactical vote filter. It is not. It is them asking about the specifics of VI in individual constituencies based on who is and is not standing.
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
It’s more likely to annoy the hell out of the emergency workers on the ground, who have to divert resources from their primary task to deal with the VIP turning up with their entourage.
This is just one reason why the debates and the arrangement of them are so flawed.
Should Farage have a place? He could lead the largest party. And the party he leads won the European Election. But he has no MPs and is sliding in the polls.
Should Sturgeon have a place? Like Farage, she isn't even standing to be an MP. Literally nobody watching will be able to vote for her. She also has a clear upper ceiling of support. There is no chance her party will form a majority. But she does lead the largest party in Scotland, and the governing party of Holyrood.
Debates work far better in a presidential system. Right now, politicians, and the media, jockey for position to try and work debate formats to their advantage. On top of sucking up far more media time than they deserve (because broadcasters love them), there are plenty of reasons to dislike these little slices of theatre.
Mr Dancer, indeed. If only there were some agreed rules for them, such as were laid down in the book The Fourth Lectern Where the 2010 debates were established with the rules: Parties standing in a majority of UK seats and with existing representation in the House of Commons on dissolution. Rules-based shenanigans could ensue, of course...
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Dunno but the attack on air travel is not entirely well placed
And I don't see people changing their eating and buying habits. Easy to attack the Emma Thompson's of this world whilst munching on your own avocado or kiwi fruit.
Much of the stuff you buy doesn't spend 3 months at sea to get here, y'know ...
Sweet Jesus on a bendy-bus that article is dumb.
.
Elaborate or risk the same opprobrium yourself.
Hannah Thomas-Peters is no mug. She's the Sky News Climate Correspondent and was RTS Young Journalist of the Year.
I'm more inclined right now to listen to her than you. Offence intended.
The journalist strikes me as a very normal human being. She admits that she is in a privileged position where she flies regularly, and is therefore suggesting having less children. I imagine that when she gets to wanting kids she will find something else people should be doing. Just like taxes people prefer other people paying for anything.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Dunno but the attack on air travel is not entirely well placed
And I don't see people changing their eating and buying habits. Easy to attack the Emma Thompson's of this world whilst munching on your own avocado or kiwi fruit.
Much of the stuff you buy doesn't spend 3 months at sea to get here, y'know ...
Sweet Jesus on a bendy-bus that article is dumb.
.
Elaborate or risk the same opprobrium yourself.
Hannah Thomas-Peters is no mug. She's the Sky News Climate Correspondent and was RTS Young Journalist of the Year.
I'm more inclined right now to listen to her than you. Offence intended.
The journalist strikes me as a very normal human being. She admits that she is in a privileged position where she flies regularly, and is therefore suggesting having less children. I imagine that when she gets to wanting kids she will find something else people should be doing. Just like taxes people prefer other people paying for anything.
The difficulty with "people changing their eating and buying habits" argument, is that for many people (especially the poor, or ill, or otherwise worse off), they are in no emotional or financial position to make good choices. Work a 9-5 that barely pays the bills, with a child at home and rent to make? I don't think you should have to expend the emotional labour making all these consumer choices about what is the most environmentally friendly option. That's why I'm okay with regulation, taxes and subsidy to basically help make those decisions for you. Make environmentally friendly options cheaper, incorporate carbon taxes into things, etc etc. (As well as that also change society in such a way as to alleviate all the pressures currently on the worse off, but hey ho)
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Even if the Tories win a majority they same arguments we've just had will kick-off again next summer when the UK needs to decide if we need an extension, or will we crash out without a FTA, because the idiot PM has made a rod for his own back again.
The idea that Brexit is going to be over any time soon is simply nonsense.
In any reasonable business managers who operate like this would be shown the door for their repeated incompetence.
This is just one reason why the debates and the arrangement of them are so flawed.
Should Farage have a place? He could lead the largest party. And the party he leads won the European Election. But he has no MPs and is sliding in the polls.
Should Sturgeon have a place? Like Farage, she isn't even standing to be an MP. Literally nobody watching will be able to vote for her. She also has a clear upper ceiling of support. There is no chance her party will form a majority. But she does lead the largest party in Scotland, and the governing party of Holyrood.
Debates work far better in a presidential system. Right now, politicians, and the media, jockey for position to try and work debate formats to their advantage. On top of sucking up far more media time than they deserve (because broadcasters love them), there are plenty of reasons to dislike these little slices of theatre.
Mr Dancer, indeed. If only there were some agreed rules for them, such as were laid down in the book The Fourth Lectern Where the 2010 debates were established with the rules: Parties standing in a majority of UK seats and with existing representation in the House of Commons on dissolution. Rules-based shenanigans could ensue, of course...
Five parties stood in a majority of UK seats in 2010. If one MP had defected to the BNP prior to dissolution then I doubt Nick Griffin would have been given a lectern still.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Can you name one country negotiating a trade deal that started with a position of parity on regulations, non-tariff barriers and tariffs?
Can you name a country that has negotiated a Deal where divergence on regulations, Tarrifs an NTBs was the aim, rather than convergence?
I thought car insurance was very little about how one drove but more about the car and where one lived. The risk of getting one's vehicle damaged or stolen seems to be a large factor in determining how much you pay in premium. I don't have a garage and live in a high-crime area - I suspect if I had a garage and lived in a low-crime area I'd pay less. That has nothing to do with how and when I drive the car.
A 991.2 GT3 RS (The Dura Ace dream car) parked on a street in Southwark is not at any risk of causing an accident but it's chance of being stolen is 100%.
I can only get car insurance by being a named driver on a policy in my wife's name. I cannot get motorcycle insurance at any price. LOL, I suppose.
The Brexit Election on Sky News - the fastest results and in-depth analysis on mobile, TV and radio • Watch Dermot Murnaghan live from 9pm on 12 December • See the exit poll at 10pm • Watch KayBurley@Breakfast election special on 13 December • Find out what happens next in All Out Politics special from 9am with Adam Boulton
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
Nice first post. Following your insight, it seems to be aimed more at men than women?
Interesting - hadn't thought about that.
Though I wonder if the picture Boris painted for us around the fish and chips - on a cold beach at night - was intended to have romantic connotations.
Gauke today exposing once again how May & her terrible cabinet made such a horlicks of Brexit. Given the visceral hatred he and Hammond clearly have towards Boris, how did they sit in the same cabinet for so long?
Indeed Gauke now backing EUref2 too today, so clearly he is a diehard Remainer after all.
He may even lose his deposit in SW Herts as an Independent
Well, he's plainly happier outside the Conservative party.
Yes, the decisions of Gauke and Sandbach to stand against the Tories show that Boris had sound judgement. Those people saying he had the numbers to eventually get his deal through without an election were incorrect, clearly for Gauke and most of the whipless wonders this was about stopping Brexit rather than stopping no deal.
You can only lie and obfuscate for so long. At some point, reality bites. I do find it bizarre that the Tories are willing to dig such a deep hole for themselves to win an election they were always going to win. https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
Even if the Tories win a majority they same arguments we've just had will kick-off again next summer when the UK needs to decide if we need an extension, or will we crash out without a FTA, because the idiot PM has made a rod for his own back again.
The idea that Brexit is going to be over any time soon is simply nonsense.
In any reasonable business managers who operate like this would be shown the door for their repeated incompetence.
It is nonsense, of course.
However, neither should the amount of time required be the 7-10 years oft quoted. How many comprehensive FTAs been negotiated where the two parties commence in absolute regulatory alignment?
Specifically when he starts discussing the 39 seats that the models differ in their suggestions which are not considered "safe seats". Those 39 seats may make for a good pool of bets / swing seats come election night.
Actually that poll illustrates perfectly the double-edged nature of the Brexit withdrawal of candidates. The Tories benefit by 3 points, but Labour also benefits by 2 (don't ask me why the Lib Dem vote should have reduced!).
Bearing in mind that is the effect of Brexit standing down in Tory-held seats - where by definition a larger percentage of the voters tend to favour the Tories - that confirms my feeling that if Brexit stood down in Labour-held seats it would be to Labour's benefit, not the Tories'.
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
You've never heard of Country of Origin?
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
Things will have changed if Johnson gets a working majority on Brexit: 1. Up to now I think the EU have been predictably taking a very hard negotiating stance because there was a real possibility that the UK could change its mind if they did, and the UK changing its mind was their preferred outcome. The likes of Blair were lobbying for them not to offer anything. The option of the UK changing its mind will be off the table in future negotiations. 2. They will also know that without the constraints of a Benn Act Mk2 he will have the option of walking away and they will have to regard that as a real rather than imaginary threat.
So it is folly to make a simplistic assumption that future negotiations will be as difficult as what went before, because the context will have changed.
The bottom line is that the EU wants to preserve its export markets in the UK and once it has accepted that we have left it will not be prepared to put those at risk, even if what it ends up with is in its eyes sub-optimal.
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
Interesting observations, but I must take issue with the idea that marmite is feelgood food!
On the other hand, I can quite happily associate Johnson with marmite ;-)
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If I succeed in:
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads (b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible) (c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
No. An equal distribution of misery must be preferable to an unequal distribution of blessings.
I thought car insurance was very little about how one drove but more about the car and where one lived. The risk of getting one's vehicle damaged or stolen seems to be a large factor in determining how much you pay in premium. I don't have a garage and live in a high-crime area - I suspect if I had a garage and lived in a low-crime area I'd pay less. That has nothing to do with how and when I drive the car.
A 991.2 GT3 RS (The Dura Ace dream car) parked on a street in Southwark is not at any risk of causing an accident but it's chance of being stolen is 100%.
I can only get car insurance by being a named driver on a policy in my wife's name. I cannot get motorcycle insurance at any price. LOL, I suppose.
Porsche have constrained the RHD supply to drive up prices. LHD ones are (slightly) more affordable and available. It'll be the last NA 911 and therefore a definite future classic.
Gauke today exposing once again how May & her terrible cabinet made such a horlicks of Brexit. Given the visceral hatred he and Hammond clearly have towards Boris, how did they sit in the same cabinet for so long?
Indeed Gauke now backing EUref2 too today, so clearly he is a diehard Remainer after all.
He may even lose his deposit in SW Herts as an Independent
Well, he's plainly happier outside the Conservative party.
Yes, the decisions of Gauke and Sandbach to stand against the Tories show that Boris had sound judgement. Those people saying he had the numbers to eventually get his deal through without an election were incorrect, clearly for Gauke and most of the whipless wonders this was about stopping Brexit rather than stopping no deal.
No, he could have got withdrawal agreement (i.e. Brexit) through parliament in exchange for parliamentary scrutiny over the FTA. That was the price of the tory rebels, and our authoritarian leader thought it a price that was too high, hence delayed Brexit and risked it not happening at all.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
You've never heard of Country of Origin?
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
Things will have changed if Johnson gets a working majority on Brexit: 1. Up to now I think the EU have been predictably taking a very hard negotiating stance because there was a real possibility that the UK could change its mind if they did, and the UK changing its mind was their preferred outcome. The likes of Blair were lobbying for them not to offer anything. The option of the UK changing its mind will be off the table in future negotiations. 2. They will also know that without the constraints of a Benn Act Mk2 he will have the option of walking away and they will have to regard that as a real rather than imaginary threat.
So it is folly to make a simplistic assumption that future negotiations will be as difficult as what went before, because the context will have changed.
The bottom line is that the EU wants to preserve its export markets in the UK and once it has accepted that we have left it will not be prepared to put those at risk, even if what it ends up with is in its eyes sub-optimal.
Haha, the old naïve "they need us more than we need them" delusion is still live and kicking amongst true believers!
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
Scotland.
In 1983 Labour won 41 seats in Scotland. If they are reduced to Edinburgh South this time then the equivalent number to 1983 is 169 seats. Well under 200 is within the bounds of possibility.
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
I mean, a media narrative already exists pitting generation against generation, and I kinda get the feeling that his example of older people are things literally said to him, so it's not like he is just making this up. I'd also say this young man is pretty good at explaining his own view, whether you agree with him or not, so I wouldn't call him stupid.
I have leave and remain older members of the family, but many of their arguments do boil down to "I'm older than you, have lived longer, seen it all and it turns out fine in the end, so don't question anything", which can be seen as arrogance.
Gauke today exposing once again how May & her terrible cabinet made such a horlicks of Brexit. Given the visceral hatred he and Hammond clearly have towards Boris, how did they sit in the same cabinet for so long?
Indeed Gauke now backing EUref2 too today, so clearly he is a diehard Remainer after all.
He may even lose his deposit in SW Herts as an Independent
Well, he's plainly happier outside the Conservative party.
Yes, the decisions of Gauke and Sandbach to stand against the Tories show that Boris had sound judgement. Those people saying he had the numbers to eventually get his deal through without an election were incorrect, clearly for Gauke and most of the whipless wonders this was about stopping Brexit rather than stopping no deal.
No, he could have got withdrawal agreement (i.e. Brexit) through parliament in exchange for parliamentary scrutiny over the FTA. That was the price of the tory rebels, and our authoritarian leader thought it a price that was too high, hence delayed Brexit and risked it not happening at all.
Death by a thousand cuts, it would have taken weeks and months with amendments a plenty and probably would have lost support at the end of it, leaving the Tories in a considerably worse position to fight Corbyn. I don't believe David Gauke had any intention of getting Boris's deal over the line, and the fact he's speaking out against a Tory majority and pushing this ridiculous notion that Boris will go for no deal shows he can be trusted even less than the PM.
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
Bit rich even for you! People who have pushed Brexit are the ones that "pit generation against generation", and as for stupidity, well, I think it has long been established that the more educated are not in favour of the stupidity called Brexit. In this instance it is the youngest who are most wise.
Hello PB, occasional lurker here. Just to share an observation on Boris's 12 questions broadcast: count the food mentions.
Thai curry Fish and chips Sunday roast Marmite Steak and oven chips
I doubt this is an accident. The aim will be to bypass the rational brain and trigger positive emotions that then, because we're watching Boris, subliminally get linked with Boris. And of course this is all feelgood food - he doesn't talk about salads.
Then the food theme is paid off with a Brexit link as Boris tells us his deal is ready to go in the microwave. It's really quite clever.
Nice first post. Following your insight, it seems to be aimed more at men than women?
Interesting - hadn't thought about that.
Though I wonder if the picture Boris painted for us around the fish and chips - on a cold beach at night - was intended to have romantic connotations.
Welcome. Great spot/analysis on the food. Maybe even an in joke with the marmite.
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If I succeed in:
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads (b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible) (c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
No. An equal distribution of misery must be preferable to an unequal distribution of blessings.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
160 won't happen. I believe even on a bad, bad night their floor is 185.
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
Bit rich even for you! People who have pushed Brexit are the ones that "pit generation against generation", and as for stupidity, well, I think it has long been established that the more educated are not in favour of the stupidity called Brexit. In this instance it is the youngest who are most wise.
Wisdom often comes with age. I don't think this lad understood the issues
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
Bit rich even for you! People who have pushed Brexit are the ones that "pit generation against generation", and as for stupidity, well, I think it has long been established that the more educated are not in favour of the stupidity called Brexit. In this instance it is the youngest who are most wise.
Education and wisdom are two very different things. You only have to look at most of our universities to realise that.
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
Bit rich even for you! People who have pushed Brexit are the ones that "pit generation against generation", and as for stupidity, well, I think it has long been established that the more educated are not in favour of the stupidity called Brexit. In this instance it is the youngest who are most wise.
More young back remain and more old back Brexit, we all know this, but trying to amplify generational differences, escalate anger and contempt, is wrong no matter which side it comes from. And 'they started it' is an excuse we are taught is dumb as children, when used as justification for poor behaviour.
Actually that poll illustrates perfectly the double-edged nature of the Brexit withdrawal of candidates. The Tories benefit by 3 points, but Labour also benefits by 2 (don't ask me why the Lib Dem vote should have reduced!).
Bearing in mind that is the effect of Brexit standing down in Tory-held seats - where by definition a larger percentage of the voters tend to favour the Tories - that confirms my feeling that if Brexit stood down in Labour-held seats it would be to Labour's benefit, not the Tories'.
It will only save tories in the south not help take seats in the north
Specifically when he starts discussing the 39 seats that the models differ in their suggestions which are not considered "safe seats". Those 39 seats may make for a good pool of bets / swing seats come election night.
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If I succeed in:
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads (b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible) (c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
No. An equal distribution of misery must be preferable to an unequal distribution of blessings.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
I've never thought the visiting matters much to be honest. Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but does it really reassure people and is it where they can be most effective?
It’s more likely to annoy the hell out of the emergency workers on the ground, who have to divert resources from their primary task to deal with the VIP turning up with their entourage.
There are lots of things a PM or the Queen attend as representative of the country, and I consider the PM going to any kind of disaster aftermath falls into that category. It should not be obligatory, but still a responsibility to be taken seriously.
What is definitely the case is, if the PM attends, they have to be genuine and sincere. Theresa May going to Grenfell Tower and only talking to police/fireworkers was a disgrace to all who actually suffered because of the fire.
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If I succeed in:
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads (b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible) (c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
No. An equal distribution of misery must be preferable to an unequal distribution of blessings.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
Guessed.
Anyone read their tea leaves this morning?
Cynics will say any type of prediction is guessing.
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
I broadly agree with this, but am waiting until the spread dips down to closer to 185 until buying.
Not all young people are this stupid and wish to pit generation against generation.
Bit rich even for you! People who have pushed Brexit are the ones that "pit generation against generation", and as for stupidity, well, I think it has long been established that the more educated are not in favour of the stupidity called Brexit. In this instance it is the youngest who are most wise.
More young back remain and more old back Brexit, we all know this, but trying to amplify generational differences, escalate anger and contempt, is wrong no matter which side it comes from. And 'they started it' is an excuse we are taught is dumb as children, when used as justification for poor behaviour.
Brexit has no actual purpose other than we voted for it so we have to do it and it has far more effect on the young than the old so they should feel anger and contempt. They'd be stupid if they didn't.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/13/tesla-cites-brexit-as-germany-chosen-over-uk-for-european-plant-elon-musk
Tesla’s boss Elon Musk has said Brexit uncertainty played a role in the firm’s decision to build its first European factory in Germany rather than the UK.
The billionaire entrepreneur revealed that the firm’s European battery plant would be built on the outskirts of Berlin.
Speaking to Auto Express after making the announcement, Musk said: “Brexit [uncertainty] made it too risky to put a gigafactory in the UK.”
Like many millenials Fox jr doesn't have a car, but borrowing one from me for a weekend trip might be a good market for your insurance. On the one hand there is slight risk from an occasional driver being less experienced, but on the other hand presumably the real speed freaks are permanent drivers.
- SLab is riddled with narrow-minded British Nationalists
- SLab rats are deserting the sinking ship
Corbyn doesn't and people don't mind that, so no harm done.
A great example of something that appears at first glance to be quite informal and off-the-cuff, but actually has had a lot of thought put into it. I imagine we'll be seeing a lot more of this style from all the parties during the campaign.
Only a matter of time, surely, before it is on once again.
I mean, I'm interested in this both from the perspective of being a lefty, and as someone who has done creative ROI using social value methods (giving monetary values to intangible things, or to things that do not generally get bought and sold).
I can accept, in principle, that being the person to have an idea for a business has a value. I can accept, too, that willingness to risk existing capital has a value (which would be dependent on many other things, such as the level of capital that person has to risk, etc). Where I think I start disagreeing is the suggestion that the person who does all that is due a permanently higher wage. A higher wage over a period of time to equal the value of the initial risk? Sure, why not. But the other workers are necessary to the business' success as well, and their contribution is not significantly worth less than just the originator of the idea.
Again, I was not trying to be personal about this, more theoretical.
Well i suppose that's better than being an even more narrow-minded scottish nationalist...
On the old methodology, it would have been Con 41 to Lab 28, unchanged from last time.
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1194551731713126401
The EU will not want any more trade disruption. I am fairly bullish that a deal can be fast-tracked.
That can be done with both.
Neither has ever been done. What happens if a deal is not agreed, Philip?
https://youtu.be/ZNq9Bjch6UA
That is why he is making the commitment on the date, to keep the ERG onside. It has nothing to do with winning the election.
When anticipating his approach to the trade negotiations with the EU then that is also the key factor to keep in mind. He will not break with the ERG. I think that's the calculation that Gauke has made that has led him to declare against a Conservative majority government.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Good luck with the business, but as someone who was an underwriting director with a big motor book I have seen many such attempts. Even Mike Brockman (who I rate as the best retail actuary of them all and a good eneough entrepreneur to make a fortune) never cracked it. A specific part of the problem with your model is that you will need to not only reduce the general price (which can be done in a few ways such as telematics/cover restrictions etc) but also mitigate the excess risk associated with poor people. I am sure posters will object, but affluence (measured by any one of various criteria such as credit score or demographic classification and analysed by GLM or GNLM) is a significant factor in risk (ignoring all other factors, the poorer you are the worse your risk. The only way I can see of managing this factor is to introduce an element of public pool into risk pricing (as is done for flood in the UK).
Well, we'll soon find out. Worth remembering, though, that one of the reasons lower income consumers are bad risks is because of the high level of delinquencies. Someone enters into a 12 month contract and pays month one and two, and then doesn't pay month three... The insurer (in most US states, and I'm sure in the UK too) is still on the hook for a few weeks while they threaten and cajole. Our prepay model doesn't have that risk, which means we should have fewer miles we're insuring for which we're not being paid.
Not in the UK. You can run the GLMs over annually paid (prepay) or instalment business and get the same result for affluence as a risk factor. The choice of annual or instalments is an additional risk factor over and above affluence (instalment business has higher risk even after taking account of defaults). This may vary by market, but I have seen similar analyses for many markets including the US and most major European markets, and they produce effects in the same direction (but with varying effect size). I worked for an insurer with 70+ motor books globally, and we looked closely for local lessons through a global HO technical unit that I was attached to for periods. Maybe there is a way through - but we never found it.
The EU also has the ability to fudge implementation of deals and implement them even if ratification is dragging in a country even though there's no reason that should happen.
VI with and without the Brexit Party and UKIP standing across the whole of GB:
Con 40/46
Lab 29/30
LD 16/17
Brexit 10/-
SNP 3/3
Green 2/3
UKIP 1/-
i.e. Con lead: 11% with BXP standing, 16% without BXP standing.
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Deltapoll-MoS191109.pdf
The latest YouGov poll also has the Con vote going up 3% and the Con lead going up 1% if BXP stood down in half the seats, so it is pointing to a smaller net change in the lead without the BXP standing anywhere and with other methodological changes of about 2%. However, the YouGov change is the smaller of the two probably because there are other methological change in the YouGov poll for Sky News that are likely to have boosted the Lab vote share. In addition to removing 317 BXP candidates, YouGov also appear to have changed to emphasising the local candidate, and also removed Remain Alliance parties standing down. I would expect many long standing Labour MPs to have be able to disassociate themselves to a degree from the taint of Corbyn's extremism, if so the focus on local candidates will help them. The absence of Green candidates will also help Labour as well as the LDs. So the overall changes in the YouGov poll will conflate the impact of partial BXP stand downs with other changes which mitigate the impact on the Con lead.
Thus Sky News commented in their poll write up (and they have the full data) that: "The poll records that almost all people who would have voted for the Brexit Party but are no longer able to - and have made up their mind - will transfer their vote to the Conservatives" and "Overall, this suggests that when people are asked about the race in their individual constituency, Tories benefit from the Brexit Party vote in areas they are not standing while Labour benefits from tactical voting and enthusiasm for the local candidate."
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-conservatives-enjoy-14-point-lead-over-labour-poll-11860021
The other aspect, as we've seen before, is when the borrowing gets too high and the wheels come off the debt wagon, it's mush easier to slash public spending than raise taxes.
https://youtu.be/NUnV-486qTk
"Yes there is, get deals with both. Job done."
The problem is, how can we import goods from the US that the EU won't allow exported into the EU without huge bureaucracy? The US want us to be the gateway into the EU for all their goods, and the EU want to protect their goods and standards. With both pulling in opposite directions, getting a deal that satisfies both will be very difficult. Getting a deal that satisfies both AND the British public would be almost impossible.
Apologies, I keep messing up the blockquotes when going over the character limit.
When you are negotiating where divergence is the aim then simplisticly all that needs to be negotiated is an agreement on what is being diverged in the future and how to cope with that.
Where you are negotiating on convergence you need to negotiate what will remain diverged and hope to cope with that [same as above] and what will be converged, how it will converge, whose standards it will converge to and how, on what timescale it will converge by etc
We don't need to negotiate anything after the and.
We're not inventing the wheel here. Many countries and regions [including the EU itself of course] have multiple trade agreements. Country of Origin is well established and already works within EU systems.
I can only get car insurance by being a named driver on a policy in my wife's name. I cannot get motorcycle insurance at any price. LOL, I suppose.
This is why I disagree with the claim earlier this morning that this was YouGov applying a tactical vote filter. It is not. It is them asking about the specifics of VI in individual constituencies based on who is and is not standing.
If only there were some agreed rules for them, such as were laid down in the book The Fourth Lectern
Where the 2010 debates were established with the rules: Parties standing in a majority of UK seats and with existing representation in the House of Commons on dissolution.
Rules-based shenanigans could ensue, of course...
The idea that Brexit is going to be over any time soon is simply nonsense.
In any reasonable business managers who operate like this would be shown the door for their repeated incompetence.
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/porsche/911-gt3-991/porsche-911-991-2-gt3-rs--weissach-package---vat-qualifying/8810630
• Watch Dermot Murnaghan live from 9pm on 12 December
• See the exit poll at 10pm
• Watch KayBurley@Breakfast election special on 13 December
• Find out what happens next in All Out Politics special from 9am with Adam Boulton
Though I wonder if the picture Boris painted for us around the fish and chips - on a cold beach at night - was intended to have romantic connotations.
Lack of local media interviews may be a mistake, however.
Mr. 09, I'd be willing to hazard a guess PB will be ahead of the broadcasters once again.
However, neither should the amount of time required be the 7-10 years oft quoted. How many comprehensive FTAs been negotiated where the two parties commence in absolute regulatory alignment?
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1194269368030580737
Specifically when he starts discussing the 39 seats that the models differ in their suggestions which are not considered "safe seats". Those 39 seats may make for a good pool of bets / swing seats come election night.
Bearing in mind that is the effect of Brexit standing down in Tory-held seats - where by definition a larger percentage of the voters tend to favour the Tories - that confirms my feeling that if Brexit stood down in Labour-held seats it would be to Labour's benefit, not the Tories'.
1. Up to now I think the EU have been predictably taking a very hard negotiating stance because there was a real possibility that the UK could change its mind if they did, and the UK changing its mind was their preferred outcome. The likes of Blair were lobbying for them not to offer anything. The option of the UK changing its mind will be off the table in future negotiations.
2. They will also know that without the constraints of a Benn Act Mk2 he will have the option of walking away and they will have to regard that as a real rather than imaginary threat.
So it is folly to make a simplistic assumption that future negotiations will be as difficult as what went before, because the context will have changed.
The bottom line is that the EU wants to preserve its export markets in the UK and once it has accepted that we have left it will not be prepared to put those at risk, even if what it ends up with is in its eyes sub-optimal.
On the other hand, I can quite happily associate Johnson with marmite ;-)
Meanwhile kante have mythological changes.
https://www.kantar.com/public/our-thinking/election-centre/uk-ge-13-nov
Hmmmm
I'll first open up with any bias i have before i get asked. I am a strong Tory but also a remainder, which clouds my judgement for this election slightly.
But looking at the sporting index of seat spread, you can buy Labour seats at 206. I would advise heavily going on this, personally i don't think labour will get a majority but i reckon around the 250 mark. Bear in mind labour are climbing in the polls (granted polls vary but seem to be closing)
Big thing to remember that labour have not dropped below 209 seats since 1935, and that was the horror show of 1983. So for those PBers saying labour could hit as low as 160 seats, that is assuming nearly 50 seats that have voted labour for nearly a century are about to leave on mass, i just cant see it. if anyone has evidence to point me wrong i'd love to peruse some.
In 1983 Labour won 41 seats in Scotland. If they are reduced to Edinburgh South this time then the equivalent number to 1983 is 169 seats. Well under 200 is within the bounds of possibility.
I have leave and remain older members of the family, but many of their arguments do boil down to "I'm older than you, have lived longer, seen it all and it turns out fine in the end, so don't question anything", which can be seen as arrogance.
"Since our previous research in Kantar’s October Brexit Barometer, a squeeze question has been added (to get an indication of which way non-disclosers are leaning) and have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference (at either the main voting intention question or at the squeeze). Under our previous approach, the headline voting intention figures would have been: Conservative (41%), Labour (28%), Lib Dems (16%), and Brexit Party (8%)."
They have "have imputed voting intention for those that have not stated a preference". WTF?
Anyone read their tea leaves this morning?
What is definitely the case is, if the PM attends, they have to be genuine and sincere. Theresa May going to Grenfell Tower and only talking to police/fireworkers was a disgrace to all who actually suffered because of the fire.