They being senior politicians. Some untruths are more egregious than others but it is very easy to find examples of politicians on any side doing that, so I'd be wary of getting a high horse unless really confident the other side dont do the same thing. But perhaps he was present but not involved in the authoring.
Not sure that is advocating privatisation. It looks like an extension of th3 current free at the point of use model - just private and charitable providers
Some of this is quite practical. You can spend X within the NHS and they can deliver 12,000 knee hips at the price, but another provider say they can do 18,000 for the same price and specification. Who do you choose? What if they sat they can do 18,000 at a lower price than the nhs can do the 12,000 and theyll do it buy hiring out the OTs from existing NHS infrastructure that isnt used at night for example.
The issue with Corbynomics is that it doesnt appreciate that by bumping up the costs of employing people and carrying out the procedures means you need to increase spending just to stand still.
This is obviously what Brown, Blair and Burnham discovered. If you just pour money in you just end up with more expensive health service without any improvements.
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
The Kantar poll has only 10% weight in my model. The moving average is Con/Lab/LD/BXP 42.6/32.1/13.8/3.6/3.1 I believe there is massive tactical voting going on, particularly LD for Lab, but also the other way (Wimbledon in play for LDs?).
I would expect the level of Lab to LD tactical voting to be higher than LD to Lab tactical voting, because a lot of LD voters don't like Corbyn. The constituency polls in Wimbledon, Finchley, Cities of London confirmed that with the Tories more likely to lose the seat when voters were told only Con and LD had a good chance of winning.
Yes, 2017 Lab Leavers in the North and the Midlands voting Tory - if "Boris" gets his majority it will be these people handing it to him. Watched a vox pop in Birmingham yesterday where one of the above types opined that "Boris" was a buffoon but a "lovable" buffoon. And that - get this! - unlike other politicians he was a "straight talker". What can you do?
If you read SO every day, you really would think everyone loathed Boris, if you read me, you'd think everyone loathed Corbyn. Viewpoints on here are not necessarily the views of the electorate.
Ive never encountered such hostility to an individual on the doorstep as i have for Corbyn. Remarkable, as a Con it makes me shudder a little at how much support for the Cons will disappear if Labour choose a leader who has greater appeal.
You'll have five full years of fucking the poor and the environment to enjoy so try to take comfort from that.
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
The Kantar poll has only 10% weight in my model. The moving average is Con/Lab/LD/BXP 42.6/32.1/13.8/3.6/3.1 I believe there is massive tactical voting going on, particularly LD for Lab, but also the other way (Wimbledon in play for LDs?).
Simple question when you established the switching % have you reduced that as the switching actually seems to be happens or does it stay the same?
Just switched on tv and saw Kay Burley having a real go at laura Pidcock over the leaked NHS report used by Corbyn
I did not realise that the accusation that Russia leaked it to Corbyn is coming from independent sources, not the conservatives
In the context of NATO, Trump and security this does not help labour at all
Could the last few days of this campaign see Corbyn declared a real threat to UK security and especially the five eyes alliance with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US and UK
It was sat on Reddit for a whole month before Labour "leaked it".
In an election full of lies - independent sources adding to them doesn't really matter.
It was sat on Reddit for a whole month, altered/created by some unseen hand in Moscow, smirking to itself, just waiting to be picked up by the Labour Party and read out by Corbyn as the unalloyed truth. Unchecked. Because he so desperately wants it to be true. Can't imagine a world where it isn't true.
If you read SO every day, you really would think everyone loathed Boris, if you read me, you'd think everyone loathed Corbyn. Viewpoints on here are not necessarily the views of the electorate.
Ive never encountered such hostility to an individual on the doorstep as i have for Corbyn. Remarkable, as a Con it makes me shudder a little at how much support for the Cons will disappear if Labour choose a leader who has greater appeal.
You'll have five full years of fucking the poor and the environment to enjoy so try to take comfort from that.
With Cchhhiiiinnnnna pumping out more emissions than ever does it particularly matter what we do on climate ? I mean I think we've got a massive success we can run with wrt wind power (Not so much nuclear) and the Tories not going that tidal project was an error but we're roundings at the margins compared to China and the USA.
OT: What Labour voters say they will do to a pollster and what they do when they see "Conservative" on the actual ballot paper may well be two different things. My best guess is still hung parliament or Tory majority of less than 10
Good morning Just switched on tv and saw Kay Burley having a real go at laura Pidcock over the leaked NHS report used by Corbyn I did not realise that the accusation that Russia leaked it to Corbyn is coming from independent sources, not the conservatives In the context of NATO, Trump and security this does not help labour at all Could the last few days of this campaign see Corbyn declared a real threat to UK security and especially the five eyes alliance with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US and UK
I’ve just realised that Corbyn is going to spend this week going on endlessly about how much he hates NATO and 5E, and that Russia and China aren’t massive threats to our economy and security. That should win a couple of hundred thousand working-class Northerners over to the Conservatives, hopefully in the marginal seats. Most of JC’s opinions on this stuff are well known to a political audience, but to a lot of people this will be their introduction to how Corbyn really thinks.
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
Flavible gives a Tory maj of 100 and ElectoralCalculus 60.
Different models, different assumptions. Flavible gives LDs 26 seats, same as my model. Electoral Calculus gives 15 iirc. MRP is different again. They are all wrong of course including mine, but in different ways.
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
Yes, me too. That would require a high degree of differential turnout and tactical voting. Both are possible, and a danger to the Tories but you wouldn't call it likely.
Feeling quite calm about the prospect of a Tory Majority now. If it happens, we will be able to say that it was not in fact Boris that delivered Brexit, but the voters. That's as it should be, especially as it will be the voters that bear the cost. Nobody will be able to say we were not warned.
OT: What Labour voters say they will do to a pollster and what they do when they see "Conservative" on the actual ballot paper may well be two different things. My best guess is still hung parliament or Tory majority of less than 10
I think lots of them just won't head out to the polls. Which likely gives the Tories a small but workable majority. However we just don't know yet.
Just switched on tv and saw Kay Burley having a real go at laura Pidcock over the leaked NHS report used by Corbyn
I did not realise that the accusation that Russia leaked it to Corbyn is coming from independent sources, not the conservatives
In the context of NATO, Trump and security this does not help labour at all
Could the last few days of this campaign see Corbyn declared a real threat to UK security and especially the five eyes alliance with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US and UK
This is already priced in with the electorate I should imagine. Many voters know he's been called a security risk but they either don't believe it or don't care, they want the sweeties.
They being senior politicians. Some untruths are more egregious than others but it is very easy to find examples of politicians on any side doing that, so I'd be wary of getting a high horse unless really confident the other side dont do the same thing. But perhaps he was present but not involved in the authoring.
Not sure that is advocating privatisation. It looks like an extension of th3 current free at the point of use model - just private and charitable providers
Some of this is quite practical. You can spend X within the NHS and they can deliver 12,000 knee hips at the price, but another provider say they can do 18,000 for the same price and specification. Who do you choose? What if they sat they can do 18,000 at a lower price than the nhs can do the 12,000 and theyll do it buy hiring out the OTs from existing NHS infrastructure that isnt used at night for example.
The issue with Corbynomics is that it doesnt appreciate that by bumping up the costs of employing people and carrying out the procedures means you need to increase spending just to stand still.
This is obviously what Brown, Blair and Burnham discovered. If you just pour money in you just end up with more expensive health service without any improvements.
Yes the ROI for the Labour years was very low indeed as a large amount of the increased spending was swallowed up by unnecessary pay and pension increases
Just switched on tv and saw Kay Burley having a real go at laura Pidcock over the leaked NHS report used by Corbyn
I did not realise that the accusation that Russia leaked it to Corbyn is coming from independent sources, not the conservatives
In the context of NATO, Trump and security this does not help labour at all
Could the last few days of this campaign see Corbyn declared a real threat to UK security and especially the five eyes alliance with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US and UK
This is already priced in with the electorate I should imagine. Many voters know he's been called a security risk but they either don't believe it or don't care, they want the sweeties.
Or, they look at Johnson and his close relationship with Trump; then they look at Trump's close relationship with Putin. Maybe they conclude it is not much of a choice.
The poll put support for the Conservatives at 44%, up one point from a week earlier, while Labour was unchanged on 32%. The pro-European Union Liberal Democrats were up one point on 15%, while the Brexit Party was down one point on 2%.
Kantar surveyed 1,096 people online between Nov. 28 and Dec. 2.
LOL, is that from the genuine Labour account? Someone on £82k currently pays £20,300 in income tax and £5,600 in NI, according to my tax calculator - a total of £498.20 a week.
I think the point they are trying to make (not very well admittedly) is that under Labour, if you earn 82k, you'll pay an additional 8 quid/month.
The poll put support for the Conservatives at 44%, up one point from a week earlier, while Labour was unchanged on 32%. The pro-European Union Liberal Democrats were up one point on 15%, while the Brexit Party was down one point on 2%.
Kantar surveyed 1,096 people online between Nov. 28 and Dec. 2.
Reading East: Take a look at oddschecker. Can get Evens Labour with Ladbrokes and 15/8 Tories with Betfair Sportsbook. I`m already big on Lab in that constituency at 15/8 and 2/1 so won`t bet more, but there is considerable disparity of pricing here. Anyone have any insight?
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
The Kantar poll has only 10% weight in my model. The moving average is Con/Lab/LD/BXP 42.6/32.1/13.8/3.6/3.1 I believe there is massive tactical voting going on, particularly LD for Lab, but also the other way (Wimbledon in play for LDs?).
I would expect the level of Lab to LD tactical voting to be higher than LD to Lab tactical voting, because a lot of LD voters don't like Corbyn. The constituency polls in Wimbledon, Finchley, Cities of London confirmed that with the Tories more likely to lose the seat when voters were told only Con and LD had a good chance of winning.
Agreed. I assume 60% of Lab voters will vote tactically for LD if Lab no chance of defeating Con, and 40% of LDs will vote Lab if LDs have no chance of defeating Tory. The latter assumption explains in part the fall in LD national share. The former assumption is not sensitive - it makes no difference to seats if only 40% of Lab vote tactically for LDs. But the latter assumption is very sensitive. If only 30% of LDs vote tactically for Lab, it gives Con five extra seats. I'm keeping an eye on that parameter on polls on tactical voting and specific constituency polling.
Question. If the polls aren't narrowing. If the word on the ground that Labour are shedding a million of the leave votes isn't showing signs of being false. If the swathe of seats across the NE and Midlands that are going blue like NW Durham and Easington are real.
At which point in the last week does the tsunami of tactical voting start to show? Corbyn isn't getting near Number 10. So Tories who hate Johnson and Labour who hate Corbyn don't have to hold their nose. And those people who don't want a blue tidal wave or a red one. When do they wake up and look at who the challenger is to Raab and Pidcock and go "I'm voting for them"?
"Having long since renounced either teaching or research, they only enter lecture theatres or seminar rooms for cocktail parties. They circulate horizontally across different institutions rather than being vertically integrated and embedded into their institutions, ruling their organisations through constant bureaucratic churn and turmoil rather than trying to conserve institutions and education. "
Even though I'm not striking, those two sentences describe the senior people at my institution to a T.
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
The Kantar poll has only 10% weight in my model. The moving average is Con/Lab/LD/BXP 42.6/32.1/13.8/3.6/3.1 I believe there is massive tactical voting going on, particularly LD for Lab, but also the other way (Wimbledon in play for LDs?).
I would expect the level of Lab to LD tactical voting to be higher than LD to Lab tactical voting, because a lot of LD voters don't like Corbyn. The constituency polls in Wimbledon, Finchley, Cities of London confirmed that with the Tories more likely to lose the seat when voters were told only Con and LD had a good chance of winning.
Your seat numbers this morning, based on Kantar's poll, are actually quite close to those I obtained from Baxter which are as follows: Con .......... 334 Lab .......... 223 LD .............. 21 SNP ............ 50 Plaid ............. 3 Green ........... 1 N.I. ............. 18 Total ........ 650 Con Maj ..... 18
Has Baxter altered EC's methodology over recent weeks? I seem to recall that with a 14% lead, the Tories were shown as having between a 50 and 80 seat lead whereas now they are struggling to achieve even the smallest majority. I know other factors are at play between the various parties, but even so. I really thought that with poll leads of 10% or more it would effectively be game over, but seemingly this is not so.
The poll put support for the Conservatives at 44%, up one point from a week earlier, while Labour was unchanged on 32%. The pro-European Union Liberal Democrats were up one point on 15%, while the Brexit Party was down one point on 2%.
Kantar surveyed 1,096 people online between Nov. 28 and Dec. 2.
LOL, is that from the genuine Labour account? Someone on £82k currently pays £20,300 in income tax and £5,600 in NI, according to my tax calculator - a total of £498.20 a week.
I think the point they are trying to make (not very well admittedly) is that under Labour, if you earn 82k, you'll pay an additional 8 quid/month.
It's been like that for 20 odd years now - the damage has been done and Universities are fully beholden to the market to get the £27,750 or so from every student they can.
Reading East: Take a look at oddschecker. Can get Evens Labour with Ladbrokes and 15/8 Tories with Betfair Sportsbook. I`m already big on Lab in that constituency at 15/8 and 2/1 so won`t bet more, but there is considerable disparity of pricing here. Anyone have any insight?
The 2017 9.9% swing to Labour was huge. Scope for that to unwind just as decisively? I think fair chance of a Tory gain.
No. It’s not. It’s using private companies to provide services, based on price, within the umbrella of the NHS. It seems you don’t know what “privatisation”actually means and entails.
No, it seems you don't. The model of using private firms to provide a regulated public service in combination with state owned entities is exactly the one used in the rail industry, and nobody says that hasn't been privatised, or at least part privatised. Similarly some council services like bin collections.
Sorry. You’re fighting a losing battle. This does not show “privatisation” in the way you want it to be portrayed. Using internal private services under the umbrella of the NHS is not privatisation. Now - taking hospitals and selling them to Nuffield Health under a franchise and them being run as Nuffield Health hospitals, with that companies management and control - that’s privatisation.
Handing them over to Nuffield on 20-year franchises wouldn't be privatisation either, I suppose. Until it happened.
Correct. The owner letting operation of its asset on a fixed contract IS NOT PRIVATISATION...
Yes, PFI turned out really well.
Wasn't that more about keeping public borrowing off the books?
Yes it’s completely different and relies on the ludicrous idea that using project finance isn’t the same as Gvt borrowing. However under every PFI contract ever written the asset comes home in the end. Also We surely can’t be defining “privatisation” as being when premises are owned elsewhere? Not only are most GPs private business (and always have been - as up thread) they also often either own their premises or lease them from the private sector. PFI, if used properly (it rarely has been), is about genuinely passingly construction and operation risks of your asset to someone else, and paying for the risk to be taken away. It shouldn’t be about deluding yourself it’s off your balance sheet, and it isn’t privatisation. Bascially, almost everyone who talks about “privatisation” of the NHS has never run anything, and certainly hasn’t run any part of the NHS.
Do not forget that the majority of Labour voters, even in Leave seats, voted to Remain. And Labour is gaining them back + Labour Leavers (albeit not enough yet). They are up above 50% of Labour Leavers and it is still going up. I think a lot of minds will be checked over the next week.
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
The Kantar poll has only 10% weight in my model. The moving average is Con/Lab/LD/BXP 42.6/32.1/13.8/3.6/3.1 I believe there is massive tactical voting going on, particularly LD for Lab, but also the other way (Wimbledon in play for LDs?).
My model using the Kantar % for England only has Con 356 Lab 163 LD 13 Gr 1. Con net gain 59, LD net gain 5. It produced 12 more English Con seats than the MRP for the MRP vote %, so may be slightly biased to the Cons favour if you take the MRP as the gold standard. Con need around 307 England seats for a working majority in the UK, making reasonable assumptions on outcomes in Wales and Scotland.
Within this I have factored in quite significant tactical voting from Lab Remainers and Con Remainers to the LDs benefit in seats where the LDs are projected to be competitive, which also helps Labour as the Lab share increases in the remaining seats to maintain the same national vote share.
The poll put support for the Conservatives at 44%, up one point from a week earlier, while Labour was unchanged on 32%. The pro-European Union Liberal Democrats were up one point on 15%, while the Brexit Party was down one point on 2%.
Kantar surveyed 1,096 people online between Nov. 28 and Dec. 2.
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
The Kantar poll has only 10% weight in my model. The moving average is Con/Lab/LD/BXP 42.6/32.1/13.8/3.6/3.1 I believe there is massive tactical voting going on, particularly LD for Lab, but also the other way (Wimbledon in play for LDs?).
Simple question when you established the switching % have you reduced that as the switching actually seems to be happens or does it stay the same?
I've reduced it for the BXP switching. I've two choices in modelling the efficiency or lumpiness of LD voting behaviour. I can either leave the switching unchanged to offset the reduction in LD national share (otherwise the two effects combined would understate the LD switchers in Con/Lab marginals). Or I could increase the weight of the multiplicative model that increases the LD share in its strong areas and reduces it in its weak areas. I have chosen to leave the switching assumptions. I'll test the sensitivity of increasing the multiplicative weighting instead. Bit technical- sorry.
LOL, is that from the genuine Labour account? Someone on £82k currently pays £20,300 in income tax and £5,600 in NI, according to my tax calculator - a total of £498.20 a week.
The £8.33 is how much of a tax rise they would have.
Reading East: Take a look at oddschecker. Can get Evens Labour with Ladbrokes and 15/8 Tories with Betfair Sportsbook. I`m already big on Lab in that constituency at 15/8 and 2/1 so won`t bet more, but there is considerable disparity of pricing here. Anyone have any insight?
The 2017 9.9% swing to Labour was huge. Scope for that to unwind just as decisively? I think fair chance of a Tory gain.
Labour are rising in the south.
Not that it will do them much good. There are hardly any seats they can win.
LOL, is that from the genuine Labour account? Someone on £82k currently pays £20,300 in income tax and £5,600 in NI, according to my tax calculator - a total of £498.20 a week.
I think the point they are trying to make (not very well admittedly) is that under Labour, if you earn 82k, you'll pay an additional 8 quid/month.
Okay, so they’ve chosen £82k becuase it’s just above their £80k level where they say people will pay more. So they’re saying that on the £2k above that level, only £96 a year additional tax will be paid, so they are saying that the marginal income tax rate will move from 40% to c.40.5% - is that right?
Reading East: Take a look at oddschecker. Can get Evens Labour with Ladbrokes and 15/8 Tories with Betfair Sportsbook. I`m already big on Lab in that constituency at 15/8 and 2/1 so won`t bet more, but there is considerable disparity of pricing here. Anyone have any insight?
Only that Conservative canvassing is much more prevalent than in 2017 under Rob Wilson.
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
Trump is incredibly unpopular even amongst leavers, so that would be Labour's wet dream for him to tell us all to vote for Boris so close to the election.
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
The Kantar poll has only 10% weight in my model. The moving average is Con/Lab/LD/BXP 42.6/32.1/13.8/3.6/3.1 I believe there is massive tactical voting going on, particularly LD for Lab, but also the other way (Wimbledon in play for LDs?).
I would expect the level of Lab to LD tactical voting to be higher than LD to Lab tactical voting, because a lot of LD voters don't like Corbyn. The constituency polls in Wimbledon, Finchley, Cities of London confirmed that with the Tories more likely to lose the seat when voters were told only Con and LD had a good chance of winning.
Your seat numbers this morning, based on Kantar's poll, are actually quite close to those I obtained from Baxter which are as follows: Con .......... 334 Lab .......... 223 LD .............. 21 SNP ............ 50 Plaid ............. 3 Green ........... 1 N.I. ............. 18 Total ........ 650 Con Maj ..... 18
Has Baxter altered EC's methodology over recent weeks? I seem to recall that with a 14% lead, the Tories were shown as having between a 50 and 80 seat lead whereas now they are struggling to achieve even the smallest majority. I know other factors are at play between the various parties, but even so. I really thought that with poll leads of 10% or more it would effectively be game over, but seemingly this is not so.
On French TV last week Christophe Forcari (Libération journalist who is close to the Élysée) said Macron had told him that France will be out of NATO within 10 years.
Reading East: Take a look at oddschecker. Can get Evens Labour with Ladbrokes and 15/8 Tories with Betfair Sportsbook. I`m already big on Lab in that constituency at 15/8 and 2/1 so won`t bet more, but there is considerable disparity of pricing here. Anyone have any insight?
The 2017 9.9% swing to Labour was huge. Scope for that to unwind just as decisively? I think fair chance of a Tory gain.
You may be right, but given that LDs have no chance this is an excellent weighted arbitrage bet.
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
Trump is incredibly unpopular even amongst leavers, so that would be Labour's wet dream for him to tell us all to vote for Boris so close to the election.
Trump is not incredibly unpopular in Labour leave seats in the North and Midlands. They respect his patriotism and the smack of firm leadership.
Reading East: Take a look at oddschecker. Can get Evens Labour with Ladbrokes and 15/8 Tories with Betfair Sportsbook. I`m already big on Lab in that constituency at 15/8 and 2/1 so won`t bet more, but there is considerable disparity of pricing here. Anyone have any insight?
Only that Conservative canvassing is much more prevalent than in 2017 under Rob Wilson.
The Tory ground game strategy in 2017 was errm… odd.
The poll put support for the Conservatives at 44%, up one point from a week earlier, while Labour was unchanged on 32%. The pro-European Union Liberal Democrats were up one point on 15%, while the Brexit Party was down one point on 2%.
Kantar surveyed 1,096 people online between Nov. 28 and Dec. 2.
Too soon yet, might just be sampling noise, but a 1.5% swing Labour to Cons over this point in 2017. Anecdotally, that is markedly higher in the Midlands and the North.
LOL, is that from the genuine Labour account? Someone on £82k currently pays £20,300 in income tax and £5,600 in NI, according to my tax calculator - a total of £498.20 a week.
The £8.33 is how much of a tax rise they would have.
Yes. The message isn’t for those earning £80k. It’s for those being promised goodies off their backs. My Facebook is full of this crap - “they are only going to pay another £8, they can afford it”.
The Northern Power House is already much more real than it appears - it really is not just the slogan some imagine. If there are 8 or 10 new Conservative MPs in Durham, Northumberland and Cumbria - and there really could be then the whole balance of the Parliamentary Conservative Party will shift. It will be incumbent upon these MPs to push on with some real projects that will make a difference to Carlisle, Kendal, Workington, Newcastle and the smaller towns. Some things to repay their confidence in us.
I think one element should be a new rail line split off from HS2 from Liverpool to Newcastle but to that standard. Work beginning now and not waiting for HS2. I know there is aspiration for a new National Park in Teesdale. Things like that. None arty town centre improvements - with free parking. Some national NHS Centre based in Carlisle or Newcastle.
I would then ditch the Northern Powerhouse title as well and call it the Northern Revolution.
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
Trump is incredibly unpopular even amongst leavers, so that would be Labour's wet dream for him to tell us all to vote for Boris so close to the election.
Trump is not incredibly unpopular in Labour leave seats in the North and Midlands. They respect his patriotism and the smack of firm leadership.
Your appellation couldn't be more apposite with that pronouncement.
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
No, I suspect someone has told him fair and square that his public support for Juhnson could cost him the election, and for once he's listened.
Jezza should be trying to wind up Trump on twitter, assuming some gofer hasn't locked away Trump's iphone for the duration. Actually Sadiq Khan should be the one doing it, Trump really seems to have a problem with him for some hard-to-fathom reason.
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
Trump is incredibly unpopular even amongst leavers, so that would be Labour's wet dream for him to tell us all to vote for Boris so close to the election.
Trump is not incredibly unpopular in Labour leave seats in the North and Midlands. They respect his patriotism and the smack of firm leadership.
Lol! You are taking about The Draft-Dodger-in-Chief who sells his own country's interests to damage his political opponents.
Sorry, I don't believe people living in the North or the Midlands are any more gullible than the rest of us.
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
No, I suspect someone has told him fair and square that his public support for Juhnson could cost him the election, and for once he's listened.
Jezza should be trying to wind up Trump on twitter, assuming some gofer hasn't locked away Trump's iphone for the duration. Actually Sadiq Khan should be the one doing it, Trump really seems to have a problem with him for some hard-to-fathom reason.
"trump is racist" is such a well worn piece of rubbish. People dont like him because he doesnt go soft on individuals because of what they are rather than who they are.
Trump's problem is that his ego cant believe that his support can in any way be a negative "people love me in the UK"...
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
Trump is incredibly unpopular even amongst leavers, so that would be Labour's wet dream for him to tell us all to vote for Boris so close to the election.
Trump is not incredibly unpopular in Labour leave seats in the North and Midlands. They respect his patriotism and the smack of firm leadership.
Lol! You are taking about The Draft-Dodger-in-Chief who sells his own country's interests to damage his political opponents.
Sorry, I don't believe people living in the North or the Midlands are any more gullible than the rest of us.
He must be the most entertaining politician ever, though. I have him on here in the background and he is absolutely BARKING
The current polling average is coalescing very uncannily around the YouGov MRP topline figures of Con 43%, Lab 32%, LD 14%.
I think the next Yougov MRP will show the same or similar Tory lead *but* a higher number of tory seats.
Why? The north and Midlands are a disaster for Labour.
Is there another MRP planned?
Yes, I believe they plan one in a few days.
On tactical voting, we have specific polling data - IIRC, half the LD voters would vote Labour if they thought that it was a Lab-Con race, and 65% of Labour voters would reciprocate for Con/LD. I think many punters are underestimating this, but it only really works where there's a clear case - typically where there's a sitting Labour or LD MP.
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
No, I suspect someone has told him fair and square that his public support for Juhnson could cost him the election, and for once he's listened.
Jezza should be trying to wind up Trump on twitter, assuming some gofer hasn't locked away Trump's iphone for the duration. Actually Sadiq Khan should be the one doing it, Trump really seems to have a problem with him for some hard-to-fathom reason.
"trump is racist" is such a well worn piece of rubbish. People dont like him because he doesnt go soft on individuals because of what they are rather than who they are.
Trump's problem is that his ego cant believe that his support can in any way be a negative "people love me in the UK"...
Well, he's basically a redneck who tunes in very easily to what his redneck base wants to hear. He has the language and the tone of a pub boor and he tells his base what it wants to hear. Whether this is essentially racist it debatable. Whether it is good for the USA, Politics and the world order generally is not.
Putting Kantar into my model leads to no change: Tories four short of a notional majority (I know, I know). The BXP is squeezed to almost nothing. I suspect those who now claim they'll vote BXP will actually vote BXP or not vote at all rather than vote tactically. Nevertheless I've stuck with my assumption that some (30%) will switch to Con and none to Lab. It only makes one seat difference to Con.
I find it difficult to believe no majority on a 44 v 32 poll to be honest
The Kantar poll has only 10% weight in my model. The moving average is Con/Lab/LD/BXP 42.6/32.1/13.8/3.6/3.1 I believe there is massive tactical voting going on, particularly LD for Lab, but also the other way (Wimbledon in play for LDs?).
I would expect the level of Lab to LD tactical voting to be higher than LD to Lab tactical voting, because a lot of LD voters don't like Corbyn. The constituency polls in Wimbledon, Finchley, Cities of London confirmed that with the Tories more likely to lose the seat when voters were told only Con and LD had a good chance of winning.
Your seat numbers this morning, based on Kantar's poll, are actually quite close to those I obtained from Baxter which are as follows: Con .......... 334 Lab .......... 223 LD .............. 21 SNP ............ 50 Plaid ............. 3 Green ........... 1 N.I. ............. 18 Total ........ 650 Con Maj ..... 18
Has Baxter altered EC's methodology over recent weeks? I seem to recall that with a 14% lead, the Tories were shown as having between a 50 and 80 seat lead whereas now they are struggling to achieve even the smallest majority. I know other factors are at play between the various parties, but even so. I really thought that with poll leads of 10% or more it would effectively be game over, but seemingly this is not so.
Baxter recently changed their methodology and it produced a step change in their predictions. I don't know if they are copying my approach
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
No, I suspect someone has told him fair and square that his public support for Juhnson could cost him the election, and for once he's listened.
Jezza should be trying to wind up Trump on twitter, assuming some gofer hasn't locked away Trump's iphone for the duration. Actually Sadiq Khan should be the one doing it, Trump really seems to have a problem with him for some hard-to-fathom reason.
"trump is racist" is such a well worn piece of rubbish. People dont like him because he doesnt go soft on individuals because of what they are rather than who they are.
Trump's problem is that his ego cant believe that his support can in any way be a negative "people love me in the UK"...
Just checking on who first used the term 'racist' here..
Kantar gives me hope, and great if Cons get a majority. Then Goldmans are betting on a 'Boris boom' according to AEP. But there is still a chance the Cons do not get a majority. So what then? Sterling tanks and UK stocks plummet. Exchange controls have already been war-gamed by McDonnell. Today I'm taking avoiding action.
Driven by "off balance sheet financing" aka fiddling the books. And just like most transactions between the state and the private sector, the state (i.e. the public) was ripped off and the private sector operatives got a great deal. Which is why I am supremely relaxed about the idea that Labour might nationalize certain companies at a bit below market value. That would be one against the head if they do.
The fieldwork finished yesterday, so yes. The polls aren't moving very much at all now with about 20% of the votes already in. Boris will have to be caught urinating over a war memorial to blow it now.
The fieldwork finished yesterday, so yes. The polls aren't moving very much at all now with about 20% of the votes already in. Boris will have to be caught urinating over a war memorial to blow it now.
If this stuff Trump is saying is true, then it is remarkable.
For instance, he just said he asked Saudi for billions of dollars for US military support, and they gave it to him (Trump said it's in the bank). Apparently, the US had never asked before; the military support was always given for free.
Is this stuff true?!
If it is I suppose there are some benefits to running a country like a car salesman.
So based on Trump's record of telling the truth we can assume he will make a PPB for Boris?
Trump is incredibly unpopular even amongst leavers, so that would be Labour's wet dream for him to tell us all to vote for Boris so close to the election.
Trump is not incredibly unpopular in Labour leave seats in the North and Midlands. They respect his patriotism and the smack of firm leadership.
Lol! You are taking about The Draft-Dodger-in-Chief who sells his own country's interests to damage his political opponents.
Sorry, I don't believe people living in the North or the Midlands are any more gullible than the rest of us.
He must be the most entertaining politician ever, though. I have him on here in the background and he is absolutely BARKING
He is a self obsessive narcissist who really only has one clear thought is that he hates Obama but everybody loves him. It’s quite revolting to listen too.
Question. If the polls aren't narrowing. If the word on the ground that Labour are shedding a million of the leave votes isn't showing signs of being false. If the swathe of seats across the NE and Midlands that are going blue like NW Durham and Easington are real.
At which point in the last week does the tsunami of tactical voting start to show? Corbyn isn't getting near Number 10. So Tories who hate Johnson and Labour who hate Corbyn don't have to hold their nose. And those people who don't want a blue tidal wave or a red one. When do they wake up and look at who the challenger is to Raab and Pidcock and go "I'm voting for them"?
A Tory MP in Easington. Holy Shit.
Easington isn't going blue. If it is, labour are not in treble figures
One crumb of comfort for Labour is the PM and the Pendulum, Lebo Norpoth model that points toward a hung parliament. But we haven't had 9 years of broadly the same Tory Gov't in the way we had in 1988 or Labour Gov't in 2006 - 2010 -15, 15-17, 17-19,19+ have all been markedly different ministries. And both of those went on for a little while longer...
LOL, is that from the genuine Labour account? Someone on £82k currently pays £20,300 in income tax and £5,600 in NI, according to my tax calculator - a total of £498.20 a week.
I think the point they are trying to make (not very well admittedly) is that under Labour, if you earn 82k, you'll pay an additional 8 quid/month.
That does seem to be what they are saying. So, if the top 5% of the population pay an extra £8.33 a month then that will raise about £300m extra a year. The remainder of what they need to raise is being paid by Amazon and Starbucks I believe. Edit, before people come along to correct me: I do understand that they are quoting an amount for people earning £82k, and people earning more will pay more than £8.33. It still doesn't mean that the sums make any sense, including the calculation to get to £8.33
On French TV last week Christophe Forcari (Libération journalist who is close to the Élysée) said Macron had told him that France will be out of NATO within 10 years.
France was effectively out of NATO for 33 years anyway - more than half of the history of the organisation. It all depends on what form that takes.
Kantar gives me hope, and great if Cons get a majority. Then Goldmans are betting on a 'Boris boom' according to AEP. But there is still a chance the Cons do not get a majority. So what then? Sterling tanks and UK stocks plummet. Exchange controls have already been war-gamed by McDonnell. Today I'm taking avoiding action.
If the final polls give the conservatives 100 seats plus I expect many of us will still be cautious especially with the memory of 2017
Driven by "off balance sheet financing" aka fiddling the books. And just like most transactions between the state and the private sector, the state (i.e. the public) was ripped off and the private sector operatives got a great deal. Which is why I am supremely relaxed about the idea that Labour might nationalize certain companies at a bit below market value. That would be one against the head if they do.
You nationalize ONE company "at a bit below market value" - and you set off a tidal wave of evacuations of businesses thinking "It could be us next". And watch how pension funds get destroyed in the process. You know, those pension funds Labour has to plunder to finance its plans....
The guy's getting old. His memory is failing. Give him a break. You can't expect him to remember what he said to the previous PM. He probably doesn't even remember who the previous PM was.
I have tested the sensitivity of my model to the tactical voting assumptions by turning each one to zero in turn and observing the effect on Con/Lab/LD. LD to Lab zero +18/-18/0 Lab to LD zero +6/0/-6 Green to Lab Zero +4/-4/0 BXP to Con zero -3/+2/+1
One crumb of comfort for Labour is the PM and the Pendulum, Lebo Norpoth model that points toward a hung parliament. But we haven't had 9 years of broadly the same Tory Gov't in the way we had in 1988 or Labour Gov't in 2006 - 2010 -15, 15-17, 17-19,19+ have all been markedly different ministries. And both of those went on for a little while longer...
I may be mis-remembering but wasn't Rod 'great with numbers except 6 million' Crosby a fan of the Lebo Norpoth model?
If this stuff Trump is saying is true, then it is remarkable.
For instance, he just said he asked Saudi for billions of dollars for US military support, and they gave it to him (Trump said it's in the bank). Apparently, the US had never asked before; the military support was always given for free.
Is this stuff true?!
If it is I suppose there are some benefits to running a country like a car salesman.
It is bollocks, the Saudis and Kuwaitis paid billions of dollars for things like Gulf War I.
One crumb of comfort for Labour is the PM and the Pendulum, Lebo Norpoth model that points toward a hung parliament. But we haven't had 9 years of broadly the same Tory Gov't in the way we had in 1988 or Labour Gov't in 2006 - 2010 -15, 15-17, 17-19,19+ have all been markedly different ministries. And both of those went on for a little while longer...
I may be mis-remembering but wasn't Rod 'great with numbers except 6 million' Crosby a fan of the Lebo Norpoth model?
Driven by "off balance sheet financing" aka fiddling the books. And just like most transactions between the state and the private sector, the state (i.e. the public) was ripped off and the private sector operatives got a great deal. Which is why I am supremely relaxed about the idea that Labour might nationalize certain companies at a bit below market value. That would be one against the head if they do.
You nationalize ONE company "at a bit below market value" - and you set off a tidal wave of evacuations of businesses thinking "It could be us next". And watch how pension funds get destroyed in the process. You know, those pension funds Labour has to plunder to finance its plans....
I really hope we go hard on pensions for the last week. Almost everyone in work now has a private pension and therefore needs to care about what Corbyn will do to them, with his hatred of successful business and wish to nationalise whole industries for a fraction of their market value. It’s not about Amazon and Starbucks, it’s about your pension and mine.
One crumb of comfort for Labour is the PM and the Pendulum, Lebo Norpoth model that points toward a hung parliament. But we haven't had 9 years of broadly the same Tory Gov't in the way we had in 1988 or Labour Gov't in 2006 - 2010 -15, 15-17, 17-19,19+ have all been markedly different ministries. And both of those went on for a little while longer...
I may be mis-remembering but wasn't Rod 'great with numbers except 6 million' Crosby a fan of the Lebo Norpoth model?
What happened to Rod Crosby?
He expressed one too many doubts about the Holocaust I believe. Ban Hammer.
If you read SO every day, you really would think everyone loathed Boris, if you read me, you'd think everyone loathed Corbyn. Viewpoints on here are not necessarily the views of the electorate.
Ive never encountered such hostility to an individual on the doorstep as i have for Corbyn. Remarkable, as a Con it makes me shudder a little at how much support for the Cons will disappear if Labour choose a leader who has greater appeal.
You'll have five full years of fucking the poor and the environment to enjoy so try to take comfort from that.
With Cchhhiiiinnnnna pumping out more emissions than ever does it particularly matter what we do on climate ? I mean I think we've got a massive success we can run with wrt wind power (Not so much nuclear) and the Tories not going that tidal project was an error but we're roundings at the margins compared to China and the USA.
What we do with our emissions will make a negligible impact in the grand scheme of things.
What we do with science and technology can have a mammoth impact worldwide as our science and technology gets adapted and adopted overseas. Especially if we can do it without subsidies because then it is worthwhile for other nations to do the same as us.
We need to continue with what we are doing. We have successfully led the world in sustainable and cheap renewable energy. We have reached a point now where without subsidies new offshore wind farms are cheaper to generate energy than any other form of energy - coal, gas, nuclear or otherwise.
We need to continue encouraging developments like this and then China can think we want cheap energy too, lets copy what the Brits are doing. And then we have a real impact. If we just shoot ourselves in the head, end our emissions unilaterally and import our goods from China we increase not reduce global emissions.
Comments
The issue with Corbynomics is that it doesnt appreciate that by bumping up the costs of employing people and carrying out the procedures means you need to increase spending just to stand still.
This is obviously what Brown, Blair and Burnham discovered. If you just pour money in you just end up with more expensive health service without any improvements.
Watched a vox pop in Birmingham yesterday where one of the above types opined that "Boris" was a buffoon but a "lovable" buffoon. And that - get this! - unlike other politicians he was a "straight talker".
What can you do?
I mean I think we've got a massive success we can run with wrt wind power (Not so much nuclear) and the Tories not going that tidal project was an error but we're roundings at the margins compared to China and the USA.
That should win a couple of hundred thousand working-class Northerners over to the Conservatives, hopefully in the marginal seats. Most of JC’s opinions on this stuff are well known to a political audience, but to a lot of people this will be their introduction to how Corbyn really thinks.
Feeling quite calm about the prospect of a Tory Majority now. If it happens, we will be able to say that it was not in fact Boris that delivered Brexit, but the voters. That's as it should be, especially as it will be the voters that bear the cost. Nobody will be able to say we were not warned.
Marketisation threatens the very purpose of our universities.
PHILIP CUNLIFFE"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/12/03/why-university-staff-are-right-to-strike/
Trump confirms about to hit France with 100% tariffs if he carries out his threat to tax American tech companies. Also after Airbus
Big warning to UK and Corbyn of the dangers of unilateral action
I`m already big on Lab in that constituency at 15/8 and 2/1 so won`t bet more, but there is considerable disparity of pricing here.
Anyone have any insight?
The former assumption is not sensitive - it makes no difference to seats if only 40% of Lab vote tactically for LDs. But the latter assumption is very sensitive. If only 30% of LDs vote tactically for Lab, it gives Con five extra seats. I'm keeping an eye on that parameter on polls on tactical voting and specific constituency polling.
You can"t have this result without the last one.
"Having long since renounced either teaching or research, they only enter lecture theatres or seminar rooms for cocktail parties. They circulate horizontally across different institutions rather than being vertically integrated and embedded into their institutions, ruling their organisations through constant bureaucratic churn and turmoil rather than trying to conserve institutions and education. "
Even though I'm not striking, those two sentences describe the senior people at my institution to a T.
Con .......... 334
Lab .......... 223
LD .............. 21
SNP ............ 50
Plaid ............. 3
Green ........... 1
N.I. ............. 18
Total ........ 650
Con Maj ..... 18
Has Baxter altered EC's methodology over recent weeks? I seem to recall that with a 14% lead, the Tories were shown as having between a 50 and 80 seat lead whereas now they are struggling to achieve even the smallest majority. I know other factors are at play between the various parties, but even so. I really thought that with poll leads of 10% or more it would effectively be game over, but seemingly this is not so.
I think fair chance of a Tory gain.
Why? The north and Midlands are a disaster for Labour.
Also We surely can’t be defining “privatisation” as being when premises are owned elsewhere? Not only are most GPs private business (and always have been - as up thread) they also often either own their premises or lease them from the private sector.
PFI, if used properly (it rarely has been), is about genuinely passingly construction and operation risks of your asset to someone else, and paying for the risk to be taken away. It shouldn’t be about deluding yourself it’s off your balance sheet, and it isn’t privatisation.
Bascially, almost everyone who talks about “privatisation” of the NHS has never run anything, and certainly hasn’t run any part of the NHS.
I think a lot of minds will be checked over the next week.
These are potentially serious matters for trade and tax income
And Boris is meeting Merkel today
Within this I have factored in quite significant tactical voting from Lab Remainers and Con Remainers to the LDs benefit in seats where the LDs are projected to be competitive, which also helps Labour as the Lab share increases in the remaining seats to maintain the same national vote share.
I've two choices in modelling the efficiency or lumpiness of LD voting behaviour. I can either leave the switching unchanged to offset the reduction in LD national share (otherwise the two effects combined would understate the LD switchers in Con/Lab marginals). Or I could increase the weight of the multiplicative model that increases the LD share in its strong areas and reduces it in its weak areas. I have chosen to leave the switching assumptions. I'll test the sensitivity of increasing the multiplicative weighting instead. Bit technical- sorry.
Not that it will do them much good. There are hardly any seats they can win.
So they’re saying that on the £2k above that level, only £96 a year additional tax will be paid, so they are saying that the marginal income tax rate will move from 40% to c.40.5% - is that right?
But he is angry with Macron and it looks quite serious
https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1201799051227934720?s=20
I think one element should be a new rail line split off from HS2 from Liverpool to Newcastle but to that standard. Work beginning now and not waiting for HS2. I know there is aspiration for a new National Park in Teesdale. Things like that. None arty town centre improvements - with free parking. Some national NHS Centre based in Carlisle or Newcastle.
I would then ditch the Northern Powerhouse title as well and call it the Northern Revolution.
Actually Sadiq Khan should be the one doing it, Trump really seems to have a problem with him for some hard-to-fathom reason.
Sorry, I don't believe people living in the North or the Midlands are any more gullible than the rest of us.
Trump's problem is that his ego cant believe that his support can in any way be a negative "people love me in the UK"...
So I presume this is new
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Boris_Johnson -12
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Jo_swinson Who ?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Nicola_Sturgeon -25
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Jeremy_Corbyn -40
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Donald_Trump -49
On tactical voting, we have specific polling data - IIRC, half the LD voters would vote Labour if they thought that it was a Lab-Con race, and 65% of Labour voters would reciprocate for Con/LD. I think many punters are underestimating this, but it only really works where there's a clear case - typically where there's a sitting Labour or LD MP.
3 days for Corbyn to dread speaking the word "NATO"......
The polls aren't moving very much at all now with about 20% of the votes already in.
Boris will have to be caught urinating over a war memorial to blow it now.
For instance, he just said he asked Saudi for billions of dollars for US military support, and they gave it to him (Trump said it's in the bank). Apparently, the US had never asked before; the military support was always given for free.
Is this stuff true?!
If it is I suppose there are some benefits to running a country like a car salesman.
So, if the top 5% of the population pay an extra £8.33 a month then that will raise about £300m extra a year.
The remainder of what they need to raise is being paid by Amazon and Starbucks I believe.
Edit, before people come along to correct me: I do understand that they are quoting an amount for people earning £82k, and people earning more will pay more than £8.33. It still doesn't mean that the sums make any sense, including the calculation to get to £8.33
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Jo_Swinson
And watch how pension funds get destroyed in the process. You know, those pension funds Labour has to plunder to finance its plans....
LD to Lab zero +18/-18/0
Lab to LD zero +6/0/-6
Green to Lab Zero +4/-4/0
BXP to Con zero -3/+2/+1
Kantar very agreeable poll to kick off the day.
'I do not know anything about the guy'
What we do with science and technology can have a mammoth impact worldwide as our science and technology gets adapted and adopted overseas. Especially if we can do it without subsidies because then it is worthwhile for other nations to do the same as us.
We need to continue with what we are doing. We have successfully led the world in sustainable and cheap renewable energy. We have reached a point now where without subsidies new offshore wind farms are cheaper to generate energy than any other form of energy - coal, gas, nuclear or otherwise.
We need to continue encouraging developments like this and then China can think we want cheap energy too, lets copy what the Brits are doing. And then we have a real impact. If we just shoot ourselves in the head, end our emissions unilaterally and import our goods from China we increase not reduce global emissions.