It doesn’t, but I don’t think there’s anything immediate on the horizon that is going to give the Government much popularity. If anything, everything on the horizon will be negative - job losses, austerity, tax rises, more death...
Re-opening the pubs and restaurants may well give the government a quick win in popularity. But you are right that management of the economy will test it.
Having said that, sooner or later Starmer will have to tell voters what he believes in and what policies will flow from that. His Brexit policy was disastrous, and he'll have to do better. He'll need an attractive and distinctive policy programme and be able to keep his party together behind it. Not easy.
He also needs to sound interesting. When a nation needs inspiring worthy but dull will probably not be enough.
Starmer's Brexit policy might be viewed differently if we crash out in December and see what flows from that.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
incidentally have the PB Tories seen this reverse ferret yet? Or is it just evidence of cabinet members not speaking to each other?
twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1269293571527659520?s=09
'We have always been at war with poor food standards'
This does not, of course, mean anything. All it says is that we will maintain our currents unless Parliament changes them.... as in a Trade Deal that requires us to lower our standards.
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Dickhead...just doing their job, why should they be subjected to every twat doing this. How would Owen like it, if i did this constantly outside his window when he was trying to write a column.
Dickhead...just doing their job, why should they be subjected to every twat doing this. How would Owen like it, if i did this constantly outside his window when he was trying to write a column.
Certainly agree with this from an article in 'The Atlantic' Some people say that the election will be close - I wouldn't now be surprised if Trump loses badly. They don't mention that Snapchat, used mainly by young people, also dowgraded Trump.
"Twitter’s decision to label Trump’s posts as misleading was a hinge moment. For years, the company had provided the president with a platform for propaganda and a mechanism for cowing his enemies, a fact that long irked both critics outside Twitter and employees within. Only when Trump used Twitter to threaten violence against the protests did the company finally limit the ability of users to see or share a tweet.
Once Twitter applied its rules to Trump—and received accolades for its decision—it inadvertently set a precedent. The company had stood strong against the bully, and showed that there was little price to pay for the choice. A large swath of S&P 500 companies soon calculated that it was better to stand in solidarity with the protests, rather than wait for their employees to angrily pressure them to act.
A cycle of noncooperation was set in motion. Local governments were the next layer of the elite to buck Trump’s commands. After the president insisted that governors “dominate” the streets on his behalf, they roundly refused to escalate their response. Indeed, New York and Virginia rebuffed a federal request to send National Guard troops to Washington, D.C." https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/how-regime-change-happens/612739/
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Though if Scotland has independence by the time of the next rUK GE, I cannot see that playing well for the Tories.
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Get with the algos grandad. Machine learning means you often don't know how signals work and the big traders don't care.
I'll tell you what I think is inevitable: One day there will be an election that results in a hung parliaments leading to a Labour-SNP coalition. It was inevitable that eventually the Lib Dems would hold the balance of power and so it came to pass in 2010. Eventually we'll get Labour-SNP in power. Quite how that will turn out I don't know.
Dickhead...just doing their job, why should they be subjected to every twat doing this. How would Owen like it, if i did this constantly outside his window when he was trying to write a column.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Some good points. However, the "undersized constituencies in Urban areas and Wales." This is not as bad for Labour this time as usual. Many of these are in North and Central Wales, PC and Tory in general. The difference in Wales may be as small as one seat. A lot of the depopulating places are Red Wall seats. Northumberland, Durham, Cumbria, the Black Country all stand to lose out. Places the Tories did well in. Meanwhile London and Greater Manchester gain. The South East gains, but this is not uniformly good for the Tories, particularly if some cities lose outer rural wards. It may turn out to be only a handful of net gains.
Surely, though, a charismatic incumbent PM whose shine's rubbed off ALWAYS gets knocked out by a competent but boring member of the ruling group:
May after Cameron Brown after Blair: Major after Thatcher Callaghan after Wilson Home after Mac Mac after Eden (these two Tory "charismatics" are relative) Eden after Churchill Baldwin after Ramsay Mac
And that nothing kills charisma faster than incompetence. How else could Heath beat Wilson? Or Attlee beat Churchill (whose 1945 campaign made May look like a campaigning genius)?
Nothing's changed lately. If history tells us anything, it's that Johnson will get kicked out during this Parliament by someone like Hunt or May, who'll then lose the election to the other party.
Whose leader won't need charisma: just competence. Which Starmer - against ANY Tory except Sunak - will be seen to have in spades, as long as he doesn't do anything between now and then.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
With all due respect, I find it hard to believe anybody can predict the result of a GE 4 years away. If a week is a long time in politics 4 years is an eternity.
You're right of course. Tories do need a miracle though. What a shower!
Good to see labour in Scotland will campaign against indy 2 at Holyrood 21
So SNP and Green only ones for second ref
'Only', lol.
That would be the 2 parties that make up the current indy ref II majority.
However all the voters will blame SNP for the Scottish care home fiasco so those parties won't be in a majority post 2021
This makes the cardinal error of assuming that all the voters who are avidly pro-independence, think the SNP is best for Scotland or both will start marching off to other parties over dead old people, or anything else. They'll ignore the problem, find a reason to blame it on Westminster, or conclude that any other alternative Scottish Government would've handled the situation worse.
I think that the SNP has a decent chance of winning outright, and failing that there's a strong likelihood of a pro-independence majority thanks to the Greens, as occurred last time. Those parties are bound to campaign on manifestos incorporating a demand for Indyref2, at which point the fun and games really kick off.
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
I agree with Isam that the more charismatic candidate normally wins but that is not always the case eg if the bigger personality is seen as less centrist than his opponent he can lose as Kinnock did to Major in 1992 or if major domestic change is seen as needed eg when Attlee beat Churchill to found the NHS and expand the welfare state in 1945 or if the economy is seen to be performing poorly as when Heath beat Wilson in 1970.
Starmer's best hope is probably to be a dull British Francois Hollande to Boris' charismatic Sarkozy, Hollande narrowly beating Sarkozy in 2012 after 17 years of centre right rule in the Elysee and after the economic crash of 2008
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
Ice cream sales and murder rate probably do correlate as the temperature rises.
Dickhead...just doing their job, why should they be subjected to every twat doing this. How would Owen like it, if i did this constantly outside his window when he was trying to write a column.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
To be fair, Governments can lose a lot of seats. Major lost 40 in 1992, Home lost 61 in 1964, Wilson lost 75 in 1970 while Brown shipped 97 in 2010 and of course Major leads the way with his 165-170 losses (depending on boundaries) in 1997.
Losing 40-50 seats isn't unprecedented and tonight's polls suggest in the region of 40-50 losses for the Conservatives on current numbers which would leave them as largest party but short of a majority.
As for Starmer, I confess I like him. I can see him as Prime Minister greeting the American or Chinese President on the steps of No.10 in a way I couldn't with Corbyn or even Ed M.
However, he has yet to fully establish control over the Party though he seems to be making giant strides toward that end. Dominating Parliament and the country are the next two tasks and he's started well with the former but it's very far from a done deal.
I like the fact we have an effective Opposition leader who is ready to ask the awkward questions and hold the Government to scrutiny and account and we've not had that since 2015.
Where I have yet to be convinced is what an incoming Labour Government in May 2024 will look like, what its leading policies will be and what its direction of travel for the country looks like. That needs to be more than re-hashed Blairism and needs to be what the centre-left (arguably) has lacked since 2008 - a clear and effective programme for the economic and social improvement of the country and its people.
I don't believe the centre-left has formulated an effective response to the events of 2008 and since or recognised how the impact of globalisation and the failure of the centre-left economic model after 2008 empowered the new generation of populists.
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
To be fair to @isam, the people running parties think this matters. That's why the Labour Party arranged at photo opportunity of Ed eating a bacon sandwich.
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
To be fair to @isam, the people running parties think this matters. That's why the Labour Party arranged at photo opportunity of Ed eating a bacon sandwich.
Both polls out tonight, Survation and Opinium would see a hung parliament, Tories largest party but probably a majority for a single market type deal with the EU
Interesting header @isam, but a few questions follow.
First, does Boris have a personality, or an act? Who was it who did the piece about being at a couple of awards dos and seeing BoJo do the same routine, word for word and tic for tic? The act might wear pretty thin- like old time music hall acts on the telly.
Next, will Boris make it to 2024? Right now, he looks pretty unwell and pretty unhappy.
Finally, you make a good point about first name recognition. Maggie had it, though Blair didn't need it really. SKS does by definition; he's Sir Keir. The Sir-ness puts a bit of distance, I'm sure. But I was struck by a report on this week's PMQs which described them as Sir Keir and Mr Johnson. Which one sounds bigger, more Prime Ministerial?
Thank you
I tried to take away my own subjective views on personality by relying on the IPSOS-MORI polls. They have Boris 64-30 ahead of Starmer, that's a bigger lead than any other clash bar Boris vs Corbyn, and at a time when Sir Keir has overtaken him on favourability.
Yes, if he doesn't make it to 2024, Sir Keir will not be next PM as another Tory will likely replace Boris. That's one of the bets I suggested - lay Starmer next PM
I dont know that a knighthood makes one sound more Prime Ministerial. There's not been a knight as PM in my lifetime. But the article was all about the public's perception of their personalities, and unless "this time it's different" Sir Keir has a lot to do on that front
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
Ice cream sales and murder rate probably do correlate as the temperature rises.
All of those are actual correlations, that’s the point.
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
To be fair to @isam, the people running parties think this matters. That's why the Labour Party arranged at photo opportunity of Ed eating a bacon sandwich.
Eh?
Sorry, I know you weren't necessarily criticising isam's piece. What I'm saying is that the correlation of personality/charisma and electoral success isn't automatically unrelated in the way that your examples obviously are.
Starmer doesn't need to win, just to prevent the Tories from winning.
I think the charisma factor is largely retrospective. If Ed Miliband had beaten Dave Cameron, wouldn't he have been seen as charismatic?
I think that is largely true. Blair was often referred to as Bambi in the early days. Blair's confidence grew as Major's government imploded, and as you indicate charisma came on the back of success in 1997.
Starmer's personal ratings are currently ascending on the back of his clinical and withering victories overJohnson at PMQs. The fact that he can think before he speaks will demonstrate he is serious rather than casual and flippant. Starmer's confidence will rise should the government start to fail over the longer term. The time may also be right by 2024 for a grown up rather than a man-child-stand-up comedian. Starmer looks the part and will grow into the role.
As for Tories claiming Jess Phillips or Lisa Nandy would be running away with the polls had they won the leadership race. I don't believe them. Much as I rate Phillips and Mandy, Tory supporters would be calling them out for their regional accents, which would demonstrate a lack of intelligence, a lack of social standing or just a demonstration of their general ignorance, irrespective of personal or educational achievement. I can say this as someone with a thick West Midlands accent, which however hard I have tried to shake it off it remains and has been a millstone throughout my career. Conversely any success would categorise them as champagne socialists.
I wouldn't say I am a Tory, and I haven't heard any people who are Tories say Nandy or Phillips would be running away with the polls had they won.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Though if Scotland has independence by the time of the next rUK GE, I cannot see that playing well for the Tories.
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
On the first point - I'm not sure it hurts the Tories that much. There may be a large cohort of English public opinion that would be distraught at the departure of Scotland but I'd be surprised. Scotland isn't a possession, and the United Kingdom as a structure is in long-term decline.
On the second, the jury's out. Sturgeon was already in charge in 2015 and the Tories seemed to be able to make political capital out of portraying EdM as being in her pocket back then. Yes, she polls reasonably well because she is well presented, and most voters outside of Scotland know next-to-nothing of her Government or its policies (independence aside) and do not have to live under them, but the West Lothian Question applies at this point. If a substantial number of English voters conclude that they object to the Scottish Nationalists having a controlling stake in their Government, when they themselves have very little say anymore in what happens in Scotland, then that could be damaging to Labour's chances.
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
To be fair to @isam, the people running parties think this matters. That's why the Labour Party arranged at photo opportunity of Ed eating a bacon sandwich.
Eh?
Sorry, I know you weren't necessarily criticising isam's piece. What I'm saying is that the correlation of personality/charisma and electoral success isn't automatically unrelated in the way that your examples obviously are.
I suggest you posted your comment under the wrong thread?
Good header Isam! Of course personality plays a big role, and Boris has it while Keir is a bit lacking in that department. But the rivalry between them reminds me of that between Churchill, who had the personality (and had just emerged as a victorious war leader), and Attlee who was also a bit lacking in that department. Yet which was the winner in 1945?
Starmer might be seen as dull but after 5 years of the Bozo clown show voters might be happy to have a serious , non-grandstanding politician in no 10.
He's submerged his submarine as well
Don't interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
Actually this isn't my first PB header. I wrote one in 2010 titled "Cool Hand Ed" suggesting Miliband do what people are suggesting Starmer does now - sit and watch while Cameron/Boris trip themselves up. The problem with that was no one knew what Ed stood for when it came to the crunch
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
Ice cream sales and murder rate probably do correlate as the temperature rises.
All of those are actual correlations, that’s the point.
Dickhead...just doing their job, why should they be subjected to every twat doing this. How would Owen like it, if i did this constantly outside his window when he was trying to write a column.
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
Ice cream sales and murder rate probably do correlate as the temperature rises.
All of those are actual correlations, that’s the point.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
To be fair, Governments can lose a lot of seats. Major lost 40 in 1992, Home lost 61 in 1964, Wilson lost 75 in 1970 while Brown shipped 97 in 2010 and of course Major leads the way with his 165-170 losses (depending on boundaries) in 1997.
Losing 40-50 seats isn't unprecedented and tonight's polls suggest in the region of 40-50 losses for the Conservatives on current numbers which would leave them as largest party but short of a majority.
As for Starmer, I confess I like him. I can see him as Prime Minister greeting the American or Chinese President on the steps of No.10 in a way I couldn't with Corbyn or even Ed M.
However, he has yet to fully establish control over the Party though he seems to be making giant strides toward that end. Dominating Parliament and the country are the next two tasks and he's started well with the former but it's very far from a done deal.
I like the fact we have an effective Opposition leader who is ready to ask the awkward questions and hold the Government to scrutiny and account and we've not had that since 2015.
Where I have yet to be convinced is what an incoming Labour Government in May 2024 will look like, what its leading policies will be and what its direction of travel for the country looks like. That needs to be more than re-hashed Blairism and needs to be what the centre-left (arguably) has lacked since 2008 - a clear and effective programme for the economic and social improvement of the country and its people.
I don't believe the centre-left has formulated an effective response to the events of 2008 and since or recognised how the impact of globalisation and the failure of the centre-left economic model after 2008 empowered the new generation of populists.
After Corbyn I'm just relieved that we have a Labour leader who doesn't terrify me. Beyond that, it is far, far too early to make any judgments about Starmer's potential efficacy. But yes, there are 45 seats available to Labour on a 4% swing or less so his coming into office off the back of support from a smorgasbord of non-Tory MPs is an eminently achievable target.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Though if Scotland has independence by the time of the next rUK GE, I cannot see that playing well for the Tories.
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
On the first point - I'm not sure it hurts the Tories that much. There may be a large cohort of English public opinion that would be distraught at the departure of Scotland but I'd be surprised. Scotland isn't a possession, and the United Kingdom as a structure is in long-term decline.
On the second, the jury's out. Sturgeon was already in charge in 2015 and the Tories seemed to be able to make political capital out of portraying EdM as being in her pocket back then. Yes, she polls reasonably well because she is well presented, and most voters outside of Scotland know next-to-nothing of her Government or its policies (independence aside) and do not have to live under them, but the West Lothian Question applies at this point. If a substantial number of English voters conclude that they object to the Scottish Nationalists having a controlling stake in their Government, when they themselves have very little say anymore in what happens in Scotland, then that could be damaging to Labour's chances.
Surely the main point is that Sturgeon (or, more likely, her successor) would demand indyref2 as the price of a coalition, of any kind, with PM manque Starmer
And he would have to refuse in case the referendum was lost.
There will have been a referendum before that ever happens
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Though if Scotland has independence by the time of the next rUK GE, I cannot see that playing well for the Tories.
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
On the first point - I'm not sure it hurts the Tories that much. There may be a large cohort of English public opinion that would be distraught at the departure of Scotland but I'd be surprised. Scotland isn't a possession, and the United Kingdom as a structure is in long-term decline.
On the second, the jury's out. Sturgeon was already in charge in 2015 and the Tories seemed to be able to make political capital out of portraying EdM as being in her pocket back then. Yes, she polls reasonably well because she is well presented, and most voters outside of Scotland know next-to-nothing of her Government or its policies (independence aside) and do not have to live under them, but the West Lothian Question applies at this point. If a substantial number of English voters conclude that they object to the Scottish Nationalists having a controlling stake in their Government, when they themselves have very little say anymore in what happens in Scotland, then that could be damaging to Labour's chances.
Surely the main point is that Sturgeon (or, more likely, her successor) would demand indyref2 as the price of a coalition, of any kind, with PM manque Starmer
And he would have to refuse in case the referendum was lost.
Starmer would return the UK to the single market, leaving near zero chance of Yes winning indyref2 anyway
Teargas and pepper spray will accelerate spread of Covid-19, doctors warn - as crowds protest across the US, more than 1,000 medical experts raise fears police tactics could worsen the pandemic.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Though if Scotland has independence by the time of the next rUK GE, I cannot see that playing well for the Tories.
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
On the first point - I'm not sure it hurts the Tories that much. There may be a large cohort of English public opinion that would be distraught at the departure of Scotland but I'd be surprised. Scotland isn't a possession, and the United Kingdom as a structure is in long-term decline.
On the second, the jury's out. Sturgeon was already in charge in 2015 and the Tories seemed to be able to make political capital out of portraying EdM as being in her pocket back then. Yes, she polls reasonably well because she is well presented, and most voters outside of Scotland know next-to-nothing of her Government or its policies (independence aside) and do not have to live under them, but the West Lothian Question applies at this point. If a substantial number of English voters conclude that they object to the Scottish Nationalists having a controlling stake in their Government, when they themselves have very little say anymore in what happens in Scotland, then that could be damaging to Labour's chances.
Surely the main point is that Sturgeon (or, more likely, her successor) would demand indyref2 as the price of a coalition, of any kind, with PM manque Starmer
And he would have to refuse in case the referendum was lost.
There will have been a referendum before that ever happens
There will be no referendum while the Tories are in government at least until after the next general election
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
Phew, that was hard work.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
Ice cream sales and murder rate probably do correlate as the temperature rises.
The point is that it's the common factor - temperature - which is causal. You wouldn't be able to reduce the murder rate by banning ice cream sales.
I think the difference here is that @isam hasn't found this link by mining the data, he had a hunch, a hypothesis first, along with a plausible set of logical steps to provide a mechanism for the effect, and then checked the data to see if it contradicted his hypothesis.
That order of methodological steps makes the results more robust.
After Corbyn I'm just relieved that we have a Labour leader who doesn't terrify me. Beyond that, it is far, far too early to make any judgments about Starmer's potential efficacy. But yes, there are 45 seats available to Labour on a 4% swing or less so his coming into office off the back of support from a smorgasbord of non-Tory MPs is an eminently achievable target.
Labour needs to win Conservative seats, pure and simple. Taking 40-50 of those even if little else changes (and perhaps hoping the LDs can squeeze out half a dozen gains though that looks unlikely at present) puts Starmer in a much stronger position.
He will need to succeed where Ed M failed in finessing his position via-a-vis the SNP. Starmer knows he will need SNP support to form a Government but what will be the price of that support? He can offer a second Independence Referendum but say he will campaign for Scotland to stay in the Union.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Though if Scotland has independence by the time of the next rUK GE, I cannot see that playing well for the Tories.
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
On the first point - I'm not sure it hurts the Tories that much. There may be a large cohort of English public opinion that would be distraught at the departure of Scotland but I'd be surprised. Scotland isn't a possession, and the United Kingdom as a structure is in long-term decline.
On the second, the jury's out. Sturgeon was already in charge in 2015 and the Tories seemed to be able to make political capital out of portraying EdM as being in her pocket back then. Yes, she polls reasonably well because she is well presented, and most voters outside of Scotland know next-to-nothing of her Government or its policies (independence aside) and do not have to live under them, but the West Lothian Question applies at this point. If a substantial number of English voters conclude that they object to the Scottish Nationalists having a controlling stake in their Government, when they themselves have very little say anymore in what happens in Scotland, then that could be damaging to Labour's chances.
Surely the main point is that Sturgeon (or, more likely, her successor) would demand indyref2 as the price of a coalition, of any kind, with PM manque Starmer
And he would have to refuse in case the referendum was lost.
It depends upon the prevailing circumstances by the time of the next General Election.
If Scotland has had a second referendum and this has resulted in a victory for independence then the point is moot. Both sides will want to reach an agreement and let Scotland go on its way before the end of the current Parliamentary term.
If Scotland has had a second referendum and the Unionist side has won again then Sturgeon will have left and her successor won't, realistically, be able to press for another re-run - even given that the Scottish political definition of "a generation" is considerably shorter than elsewhere, two or three years might be pushing it a bit.
If, however, Scotland hasn't had a second referendum then things become very interesting. Assuming that the SNP still holds the majority of Scottish Westminster seats then it can and will press hard for the vote, and then I think Starmer would have to concede in return for their backing - although it would precipitate a major constitutional crisis were that vote to return a result for independence, because Scotland's MPs don't leave Westminster until the Union is dissolved.
Should Starmer only be able to command a Commons majority with the help of the SNP then we could end up with the extraordinary spectacle of a UK Government propped up by SNP MPs negotiating independence with the SNP.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Though if Scotland has independence by the time of the next rUK GE, I cannot see that playing well for the Tories.
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
On the first point - I'm not sure it hurts the Tories that much. There may be a large cohort of English public opinion that would be distraught at the departure of Scotland but I'd be surprised. Scotland isn't a possession, and the United Kingdom as a structure is in long-term decline.
On the second, the jury's out. Sturgeon was already in charge in 2015 and the Tories seemed to be able to make political capital out of portraying EdM as being in her pocket back then. Yes, she polls reasonably well because she is well presented, and most voters outside of Scotland know next-to-nothing of her Government or its policies (independence aside) and do not have to live under them, but the West Lothian Question applies at this point. If a substantial number of English voters conclude that they object to the Scottish Nationalists having a controlling stake in their Government, when they themselves have very little say anymore in what happens in Scotland, then that could be damaging to Labour's chances.
Surely the main point is that Sturgeon (or, more likely, her successor) would demand indyref2 as the price of a coalition, of any kind, with PM manque Starmer
And he would have to refuse in case the referendum was lost.
Starmer would return the UK to the single market, leaving near zero chance of Yes winning indyref2 anyway
Starmer would return the UK to the single market, leaving near zero chance of Yes winning indyref2 anyway
You've come out with this again - is this Labour policy or your characterisation of it? I've not seen anywhere Starmer saying he will try to take Britain into the Single Market. Indeed, all I've seen is his acceptance we won't rejoin the EU.
As we don't yet know the terms on which we will end transition, it seem sodd you seem so certain of what Labour's line is or will be.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Though if Scotland has independence by the time of the next rUK GE, I cannot see that playing well for the Tories.
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
On the first point - I'm not sure it hurts the Tories that much. There may be a large cohort of English public opinion that would be distraught at the departure of Scotland but I'd be surprised. Scotland isn't a possession, and the United Kingdom as a structure is in long-term decline.
On the second, the jury's out. Sturgeon was already in charge in 2015 and the Tories seemed to be able to make political capital out of portraying EdM as being in her pocket back then. Yes, she polls reasonably well because she is well presented, and most voters outside of Scotland know next-to-nothing of her Government or its policies (independence aside) and do not have to live under them, but the West Lothian Question applies at this point. If a substantial number of English voters conclude that they object to the Scottish Nationalists having a controlling stake in their Government, when they themselves have very little say anymore in what happens in Scotland, then that could be damaging to Labour's chances.
Surely the main point is that Sturgeon (or, more likely, her successor) would demand indyref2 as the price of a coalition, of any kind, with PM manque Starmer
And he would have to refuse in case the referendum was lost.
Starmer would return the UK to the single market, leaving near zero chance of Yes winning indyref2 anyway
I could believe that Starmer would want to take the UK into the single market, but, like Blair and his desire to take the UK into the Euro, I think it much more likely that he will decide it's too much trouble and will concentrate on other things.
We’ll be on WTO terms very shortly. If everything is fine, then it’s very unlikely Starmer would rock the boat to bring us back into the Single Market. If everything is not fine, then I doubt the Single Market will be a “negative”.
Beth Rigby really should be placed in internment by the government. It's what we would do with these sort of people in wartime. And this is the biggest crisis since the war.
Whilst I do think Starmer will win the next election I confess to sharing the @isam experience of watching that particular broadcast by him. He did not grab me. Indeed he lost the battle for my attention to his desk and surroundings. So he does need to work on this.
It's far too soon to tell, but it would be truly remarkable if Labour were able to win the next General Election outright.
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Though if Scotland has independence by the time of the next rUK GE, I cannot see that playing well for the Tories.
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
On the first point - I'm not sure it hurts the Tories that much. There may be a large cohort of English public opinion that would be distraught at the departure of Scotland but I'd be surprised. Scotland isn't a possession, and the United Kingdom as a structure is in long-term decline.
On the second, the jury's out. Sturgeon was already in charge in 2015 and the Tories seemed to be able to make political capital out of portraying EdM as being in her pocket back then. Yes, she polls reasonably well because she is well presented, and most voters outside of Scotland know next-to-nothing of her Government or its policies (independence aside) and do not have to live under them, but the West Lothian Question applies at this point. If a substantial number of English voters conclude that they object to the Scottish Nationalists having a controlling stake in their Government, when they themselves have very little say anymore in what happens in Scotland, then that could be damaging to Labour's chances.
Surely the main point is that Sturgeon (or, more likely, her successor) would demand indyref2 as the price of a coalition, of any kind, with PM manque Starmer
And he would have to refuse in case the referendum was lost.
There will have been a referendum before that ever happens
Scotland may well go Indy at some point, but it won’t be in the next four years. The Tories have nothing to lose and everything to gain by refusing a referendum, even if Sturgeon wins every seat in Holyrood.
It cements the Tories as the party of the union in the north. It will also be quite popular with the majority of Scots who don’t want a referendum just yet. And the longer the Tories hold out the more likely Indy or the SNP will become less popular over time. All pendulums swing.
The Tories will point blank refuse a vote. Sorry.
This rather depends on how contrary the Scottish electorate is feeling. An awful lot of them might not mind telling the Government in Edinburgh that they don't fancy a referendum right now thank you very much, but may bristle at the Government in London telling the Government in Edinburgh the same thing on their behalf.
If the Tories are serious about trying to hold the Union together then they will know perfectly well that there's no point in antagonising Scottish swing voters who weren't contemplating voting for independence into considering it through heavy-handed action. If there's a mood after the 2021 election that a pro-independence majority elected on pro-independence manifestos has the right to ask for another go then Johnson would be wise to concede. Trying to boot the whole issue out beyond 2024 - creating a new grievance to be milked in the process - would be a real gamble.
Comments
(If you have no idea what I'm talking about, this must be very confusing)
On the current boundaries, seat number 123 on the Labour target list is South Ribble, with a Con maj of over 11,000 and requiring a 10.4% swing to flip; moreover, there are 16 SNP seats in the list ahead of that, and for each one of those SLAB can't win back an even safer target in England or Wales has to be converted. If Labour can't make any progress at all in Scotland (not at all beyond the bounds of possibility) then the magic target becomes Basingstoke (Con maj 14,200, 13% swing required) which has been Tory continuously since 1924. If Scotland secedes before the next GE then the new magic target becomes the slightly more achievable Stevenage (Con maj 8,500, 9% swing,) but that still requires a swing to Labour slightly in excess of the 1997 Blair landslide to achieve an absolute majority of one.
Beyond that, we have to consider it likely that the Government will use its solid Commons majority to implement long-overdue boundary changes at some point before the next election. Whatever the outcome of such reforms, one has to presume that they are unlikely to be advantageous to Labour which has historically benefitted from holding many under-sized constituencies in urban areas and in Wales.
A much more realistic target is, of course, to strip the Tories of their majority and govern as a minority or in a coalition; Labour doesn't even have to become the largest party to do that. However, unless Scotland has gone by then, the English Tories will then be able to weaponise the SNP against Labour in the campaign again, which may result in a situation not necessarily to Starmer's advantage.
Don't tell malcolmg 😊
That would be the 2 parties that make up the current indy ref II majority.
Every year, big investment banks hire people to be traders. Often with little more than a degree and a big ego, these people are given "lines" of perhaps $20m to trade.
Some of these traders immerse themselves in R, Python, Excel and Bloomberg and search constantly for signals. Does the movement of some asset class predict later movement in another? Staring at screens for days and weeks, they always find *something*.
The inverse of the Baltic dry index, predicts - with 83% certainty - the movement of the NASDAQ three days later.
The young trader leans back from his terminal, a grin on his face. He's found it. The holy grail. A signal that can turn his $20m into $30m in the next year and guarantee him a massive bonus.
That night, the trader gets very drunk and bores his girlfriend with tales of his genius.
The next day, the strategy is implemented.
But there's something wrong. Instead of making money, the trader is losing it. He isn't worried, mind. In 17% of cases, the NASDAQ doesn't behave as it should. He doubles down to make sure that he benefits from the inevitable snap back.
It doesn't snap back. The signal isn't working. The trader gets jumpy. Works late hours. And finally discovers the problem. If the yield on the index of US municipal bonds is inverted between 3 and 5 years, then the signal doesn't work.
Relief floods him. It was just an aberration, and he didn't realise about the munis, but he does now.
He readjusts his trading programme to take account of the new additional signal.
But what is this? It still doesn't work.
And our new trader gets fired, having lost $1m of his $20m in just 12 weeks.
Why this story?
Beware of extrapolation from small datasets. Just because there has been correlation between some type polling and a particular result, or between two unconnected asset classes, doesn't mean there's any kind of causal relationship.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1269202840364421121?s=19
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1269340932924674050
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22742328/most-savage-test-innings
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1269209978189107201
Some people say that the election will be close - I wouldn't now be surprised if Trump loses badly. They don't mention that Snapchat, used mainly by young people, also dowgraded Trump.
"Twitter’s decision to label Trump’s posts as misleading was a hinge moment. For years, the company had provided the president with a platform for propaganda and a mechanism for cowing his enemies, a fact that long irked both critics outside Twitter and employees within. Only when Trump used Twitter to threaten violence against the protests did the company finally limit the ability of users to see or share a tweet.
Once Twitter applied its rules to Trump—and received accolades for its decision—it inadvertently set a precedent. The company had stood strong against the bully, and showed that there was little price to pay for the choice. A large swath of S&P 500 companies soon calculated that it was better to stand in solidarity with the protests, rather than wait for their employees to angrily pressure them to act.
A cycle of noncooperation was set in motion. Local governments were the next layer of the elite to buck Trump’s commands. After the president insisted that governors “dominate” the streets on his behalf, they roundly refused to escalate their response. Indeed, New York and Virginia rebuffed a federal request to send National Guard troops to Washington, D.C."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/how-regime-change-happens/612739/
https://twitter.com/JoanaRamiroUK/status/1269309402546352128
I am an optimist and think/hope dark matter immunity will make this irrelevant. But if that's wrong??
A Lab SNP coalition/Confidence and Supply may not be that scary to English voters. Ms Sturgeon is well thought of South of the border, in a way that Salmond never was.
ETA based on the Jim Simons book.
To be fair, Portugal have faired quite well. Much better than most of western europe.
This is not as bad for Labour this time as usual.
Many of these are in North and Central Wales, PC and Tory in general. The difference in Wales may be as small as one seat. A lot of the depopulating places are Red Wall seats. Northumberland, Durham, Cumbria, the Black Country all stand to lose out. Places the Tories did well in.
Meanwhile London and Greater Manchester gain. The South East gains, but this is not uniformly good for the Tories, particularly if some cities lose outer rural wards.
It may turn out to be only a handful of net gains.
Surely, though, a charismatic incumbent PM whose shine's rubbed off ALWAYS gets knocked out by a competent but boring member of the ruling group:
May after Cameron
Brown after Blair:
Major after Thatcher
Callaghan after Wilson
Home after Mac
Mac after Eden (these two Tory "charismatics" are relative)
Eden after Churchill
Baldwin after Ramsay Mac
And that nothing kills charisma faster than incompetence. How else could Heath beat Wilson? Or Attlee beat Churchill (whose 1945 campaign made May look like a campaigning genius)?
Nothing's changed lately. If history tells us anything, it's that Johnson will get kicked out during this Parliament by someone like Hunt or May, who'll then lose the election to the other party.
Whose leader won't need charisma: just competence. Which Starmer - against ANY Tory except Sunak - will be seen to have in spades, as long as he doesn't do anything between now and then.
I think that the SNP has a decent chance of winning outright, and failing that there's a strong likelihood of a pro-independence majority thanks to the Greens, as occurred last time. Those parties are bound to campaign on manifestos incorporating a demand for Indyref2, at which point the fun and games really kick off.
You could have just pointed to the correlation between ice cream sales and the murder rate in the US. Or between sour cream sales and motorbike accidents. Or cheese sales and golf course revenues. Etc.
Starmer's best hope is probably to be a dull British Francois Hollande to Boris' charismatic Sarkozy, Hollande narrowly beating Sarkozy in 2012 after 17 years of centre right rule in the Elysee and after the economic crash of 2008
Losing 40-50 seats isn't unprecedented and tonight's polls suggest in the region of 40-50 losses for the Conservatives on current numbers which would leave them as largest party but short of a majority.
As for Starmer, I confess I like him. I can see him as Prime Minister greeting the American or Chinese President on the steps of No.10 in a way I couldn't with Corbyn or even Ed M.
However, he has yet to fully establish control over the Party though he seems to be making giant strides toward that end. Dominating Parliament and the country are the next two tasks and he's started well with the former but it's very far from a done deal.
I like the fact we have an effective Opposition leader who is ready to ask the awkward questions and hold the Government to scrutiny and account and we've not had that since 2015.
Where I have yet to be convinced is what an incoming Labour Government in May 2024 will look like, what its leading policies will be and what its direction of travel for the country looks like. That needs to be more than re-hashed Blairism and needs to be what the centre-left (arguably) has lacked since 2008 - a clear and effective programme for the economic and social improvement of the country and its people.
I don't believe the centre-left has formulated an effective response to the events of 2008 and since or recognised how the impact of globalisation and the failure of the centre-left economic model after 2008 empowered the new generation of populists.
It would see Labour pick up 46 seats on UNS, with the Tories losing their majority and falling to just 316 seats, although still largest party.
Watch out for 3 solid weeks on anti Brexit propaganda from now on.
I tried to take away my own subjective views on personality by relying on the IPSOS-MORI polls. They have Boris 64-30 ahead of Starmer, that's a bigger lead than any other clash bar Boris vs Corbyn, and at a time when Sir Keir has overtaken him on favourability.
Yes, if he doesn't make it to 2024, Sir Keir will not be next PM as another Tory will likely replace Boris. That's one of the bets I suggested - lay Starmer next PM
I dont know that a knighthood makes one sound more Prime Ministerial. There's not been a knight as PM in my lifetime. But the article was all about the public's perception of their personalities, and unless "this time it's different" Sir Keir has a lot to do on that front
https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/derbyshire-villagers-will-close-roads-prevent-durdle-door-style-tragedy-disused-quarry-2876588?fbclid=IwAR2XFr_wMtk56EGvauhi4N6zTVvP0UrO7hypmVjqBdiV58Nf_dm-mb904zU
On the second, the jury's out. Sturgeon was already in charge in 2015 and the Tories seemed to be able to make political capital out of portraying EdM as being in her pocket back then. Yes, she polls reasonably well because she is well presented, and most voters outside of Scotland know next-to-nothing of her Government or its policies (independence aside) and do not have to live under them, but the West Lothian Question applies at this point. If a substantial number of English voters conclude that they object to the Scottish Nationalists having a controlling stake in their Government, when they themselves have very little say anymore in what happens in Scotland, then that could be damaging to Labour's chances.
But the rivalry between them reminds me of that between Churchill, who had the personality (and had just emerged as a victorious war leader), and Attlee who was also a bit lacking in that department.
Yet which was the winner in 1945?
Actually this isn't my first PB header. I wrote one in 2010 titled "Cool Hand Ed" suggesting Miliband do what people are suggesting Starmer does now - sit and watch while Cameron/Boris trip themselves up. The problem with that was no one knew what Ed stood for when it came to the crunch
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/category/general/page/27/
https://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=341
I think the difference here is that @isam hasn't found this link by mining the data, he had a hunch, a hypothesis first, along with a plausible set of logical steps to provide a mechanism for the effect, and then checked the data to see if it contradicted his hypothesis.
That order of methodological steps makes the results more robust.
He will need to succeed where Ed M failed in finessing his position via-a-vis the SNP. Starmer knows he will need SNP support to form a Government but what will be the price of that support? He can offer a second Independence Referendum but say he will campaign for Scotland to stay in the Union.
If Scotland has had a second referendum and this has resulted in a victory for independence then the point is moot. Both sides will want to reach an agreement and let Scotland go on its way before the end of the current Parliamentary term.
If Scotland has had a second referendum and the Unionist side has won again then Sturgeon will have left and her successor won't, realistically, be able to press for another re-run - even given that the Scottish political definition of "a generation" is considerably shorter than elsewhere, two or three years might be pushing it a bit.
If, however, Scotland hasn't had a second referendum then things become very interesting. Assuming that the SNP still holds the majority of Scottish Westminster seats then it can and will press hard for the vote, and then I think Starmer would have to concede in return for their backing - although it would precipitate a major constitutional crisis were that vote to return a result for independence, because Scotland's MPs don't leave Westminster until the Union is dissolved.
Should Starmer only be able to command a Commons majority with the help of the SNP then we could end up with the extraordinary spectacle of a UK Government propped up by SNP MPs negotiating independence with the SNP.
As we don't yet know the terms on which we will end transition, it seem sodd you seem so certain of what Labour's line is or will be.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1269355662678638592
LOL.
If the Tories are serious about trying to hold the Union together then they will know perfectly well that there's no point in antagonising Scottish swing voters who weren't contemplating voting for independence into considering it through heavy-handed action. If there's a mood after the 2021 election that a pro-independence majority elected on pro-independence manifestos has the right to ask for another go then Johnson would be wise to concede. Trying to boot the whole issue out beyond 2024 - creating a new grievance to be milked in the process - would be a real gamble.