Get over it. Advisors have never been elected, if they were they'd be MPs and they'd have their own advisors who would be unelected and repeat ad nauseum.
Every PM throughout all of history (and every monarch before then) has had unelected advisors.
I think thats fair - but there is also a difference, the PM is an empty vassal who will do whatever he believes is popular, and he has appointed a cabinet of yes men and women. The role of advisors is therefore much bigger than normal.
You have done well to identify Sunak and Patel as potential next leaders, they are the two who have stood up to no 10 the most.
Indeed, Sunak as David Miliband and Patel as Ed Miliband
If I understand correctly, Britain’s Q3 ‘19 to Q3 ‘20 performance is the worst in Europe.
Sick man at the helm; sick man of Europe once more.
UK did very badly with first wave, but seeing what is happening now in France and Italy, compared to the stabilisation in infection rates in the UK, and it begins to look like the UK has done a lot better second time around.
By the end of 2021 Q1 we would be able to see the benefit if that proves to be the case.
Luckily nothing else is happening in Q1 2021 that could damage our growth prospects.
Quite the contrary, the brakes will be removed from the UK economy in Q1 2021.
Tell that to the Bank of England, who downgraded their growth forecasts for Q1 based on surveys showing firms are not prepared for Brexit. Of course I am sure you know better.
There may be some disruption whenever Brexit occurs that was always inevitable.
But its like a hockey stick graph. An initial drop and then an upturn. Because once the disruption has occurred firms that have been caught out for a lack of preparation will be adapting as fast as they can - and the uncertainty will be removed and we can move forwards.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Mr. Nichomar, the campaigns were dreadful, but most people will go for optimistic complacency over arrogant sneering.
I doubt if more than 10% of people really put any effort into their decision, most minds were made up despite people saying otherwise. If they had they would have demanded a structure for what they were voting for, leave or remain, both sides thought it was to their advantage to let people construct their own outcome, hence the pickle the UK is in with it having played brilliantly for farage to be able to say it’s the wrong type of brexit. As an aside most people think brexit is done and just want the virus sorted.
Get over it. Advisors have never been elected, if they were they'd be MPs and they'd have their own advisors who would be unelected and repeat ad nauseum.
Every PM throughout all of history (and every monarch before then) has had unelected advisors.
I think thats fair - but there is also a difference, the PM is an empty vassal who will do whatever he believes is popular, and he has appointed a cabinet of yes men and women. The role of advisors is therefore much bigger than normal.
You have done well to identify Sunak and Patel as potential next leaders, they are the two who have stood up to no 10 the most.
Indeed, Sunak as David Miliband and Patel as Ed Miliband
Get over it. Advisors have never been elected, if they were they'd be MPs and they'd have their own advisors who would be unelected and repeat ad nauseum.
Every PM throughout all of history (and every monarch before then) has had unelected advisors.
I think thats fair - but there is also a difference, the PM is an empty vassal who will do whatever he believes is popular, and he has appointed a cabinet of yes men and women. The role of advisors is therefore much bigger than normal.
You have done well to identify Sunak and Patel as potential next leaders, they are the two who have stood up to no 10 the most.
Indeed, Sunak as David Miliband and Patel as Ed Miliband
Are you two sure of that? Mr Sunak and Ms Patel are Johnson selections and have remained in the Cabinet all this time. If you are looking for vertebrates who have "stood up to No 10 the most", then maybe Mr Javid and similar are better candidates.
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
Of course it is led by elites, that is what elites do. Certainly the establishment was split on the issue and still is. But the establishment is not homogenous. In general it was the more meritocratic and cosmopolitan elements of the establishment that supported Remain (eg listed corporates), but a lot of the Leave leadership and backers come from a more traditional elite background that saw the EU as a threat to their privileged position - with regulators that are more distant and hence harder to capture and bringing a new more meritocratic and cosmopolitan elite to London that was starting to crowd them out of their traditional niches.
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
Of course it is led by elites, that is what elites do. Certainly the establishment was split on the issue and still is. But the establishment is not homogenous. In general it was the more meritocratic and cosmopolitan elements of the establishment that supported Remain (eg listed corporates), but a lot of the Leave leadership and backers come from a more traditional elite background that saw the EU as a threat to their privileged position - with regulators that are more distant and hence harder to capture and bringing a new more meritocratic and cosmopolitan elite to London that was starting to crowd them out of their traditional niches.
Get over it. Advisors have never been elected, if they were they'd be MPs and they'd have their own advisors who would be unelected and repeat ad nauseum.
Every PM throughout all of history (and every monarch before then) has had unelected advisors.
I think thats fair - but there is also a difference, the PM is an empty vassal who will do whatever he believes is popular, and he has appointed a cabinet of yes men and women. The role of advisors is therefore much bigger than normal.
You have done well to identify Sunak and Patel as potential next leaders, they are the two who have stood up to no 10 the most.
Priti Patel would be well-advised to borrow Professor Van Tam's platform for future briefings so she is not dwarfed by the lectern. Priti is not very tall and heightism is one of the few remaining allowed prejudices.
The last US president to be shorter than todays average US adult male was William McKinley elected in 1900, who would still have been average height at the time.
A significant part of the gender pay gap can also be explained by height.
It is all quite curious, and does show the collective human hive mind has weird and illogical preferences, these leaders are not physically taking us into battles any more.
Even back in times when leaders often did take people into battle, those who didn't or did not very well could still rise to be leaders. I mean, was Augustus as good a battle leader as Ceasar?
If I understand correctly, Britain’s Q3 ‘19 to Q3 ‘20 performance is the worst in Europe.
Sick man at the helm; sick man of Europe once more.
UK did very badly with first wave, but seeing what is happening now in France and Italy, compared to the stabilisation in infection rates in the UK, and it begins to look like the UK has done a lot better second time around.
By the end of 2021 Q1 we would be able to see the benefit if that proves to be the case.
Luckily nothing else is happening in Q1 2021 that could damage our growth prospects.
Indeed. Quite the contrary, the brakes will be removed from the UK economy in Q1 2021.
Because of the vaccine! Exiting transition won't put the brakes on or take them off as we're mysteriously going to continue trading as we are now...
An end to uncertainty in Europe will take the brakes off. Extending transition would be utter madness as it keeps the brakes on the economy as people are uncertain what is going to happen.
Whether its a BINO trade deal (unlikely), a proper FTA (much more likely) or no deal (also unlikely) we need to just get on with it now and end this interminable process.
As you are well aware of how long bespoke FTA's take to be negotiated you know as well as I do that we aren't going to get a UK specific one. We can have a "FTA" - the EEA with our minor tweaks on fishing - and call it whatever you like.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Sorry, should have been Eton educated Cameron led the Remain campaign.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Sorry, should have been Eton educated Cameron led the Remain campaign.
He may have been a Leave campaign sleeper agent, to be fair.
If I understand correctly, Britain’s Q3 ‘19 to Q3 ‘20 performance is the worst in Europe.
Sick man at the helm; sick man of Europe once more.
UK did very badly with first wave, but seeing what is happening now in France and Italy, compared to the stabilisation in infection rates in the UK, and it begins to look like the UK has done a lot better second time around.
By the end of 2021 Q1 we would be able to see the benefit if that proves to be the case.
Luckily nothing else is happening in Q1 2021 that could damage our growth prospects.
Indeed. Quite the contrary, the brakes will be removed from the UK economy in Q1 2021.
Because of the vaccine! Exiting transition won't put the brakes on or take them off as we're mysteriously going to continue trading as we are now...
An end to uncertainty in Europe will take the brakes off. Extending transition would be utter madness as it keeps the brakes on the economy as people are uncertain what is going to happen.
Whether its a BINO trade deal (unlikely), a proper FTA (much more likely) or no deal (also unlikely) we need to just get on with it now and end this interminable process.
As you are well aware of how long bespoke FTA's take to be negotiated you know as well as I do that we aren't going to get a UK specific one. We can have a "FTA" - the EEA with our minor tweaks on fishing - and call it whatever you like.
It will not be the EEA. That is not remotely on the table, I can guarantee it won't be that.
And negotiations only take a long time because they don't face the urgency of this one. What you're doing is the same naivety of people who say a vaccine takes seven years to develop.
We are all used to the Daily Mail trying to convince us that someone on £100k is on an average income. Sky News have gone one better. They have an article on capital gains tax with the headline:
'Chancellor considers middle class tax raid to pay for pandemic debt mountain'
Within the article is the sentence:
'Only 0.5% of the population paid capital gains tax in 2017-18.'
Yep. That's the squeezed middle alright.
One of the points of the suggested changes is to increase that 0.5%. Currently £12k per annum is exempt from the tax; get rid of that, and a lot more will pay it.
But otherwise, I agree with your point.
If you get rid of the £12K allowance it would be an admin nightmare. Every single share transaction would result in a capital gains gain or loss to be recorded and paid. You could argue it could be much lower but again that would cause a lot more transactions as people try and get below the new limit. I assume it is set at £12K (which is quite high) because people with modest investments don't transact very often so you are spreading a modest gain over decades.
It's not spread over years any more, is it? All the gain is taxed in the one tax year now. Can't even carry over the previous year's allowance. You have to split up your sales between years - which may not be possible or desirable.
I don`t think it was ever spread over years. What did change is that there was indexation relief which was removed (Gordon Brown I think). This is absurd because if you make a £10k gain (having used your CGT allowance) it makes no difference whether the asset to which the gain relates was purchased ten years ago or yesterday.
Removing CGT allowance entirely would be a nightmare for anyone who buys and sells shares. At the moment you pay no tax on aggregated gains up to the CGT allowance but, even better administratively, if your gains are within the allowance AND the proceeds are no more than four times the allowance you don`t even need to enter the gains on your tax return.
The system is great as it is, except I would reinstate indexation.
What should be looked at is whether the CGT tax percentage rate is high enough.
Isn't Biden's lead more than the outstanding ballots remaining?
Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. If the stats were exactly the same but names reversed it would have been called.
Quite so.
Whilst we all accept that RCP has a GOP lean (as in Tower of Pisa) and their inability to publish authentic polls is well known, I don't think anyone realistically expected RCP to foolishly follow the Trump infant playbook. It simply diminishes their credibility.
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The US shows precisely how the great unwashed can be led by an elite posing as something else.
We are all used to the Daily Mail trying to convince us that someone on £100k is on an average income. Sky News have gone one better. They have an article on capital gains tax with the headline:
'Chancellor considers middle class tax raid to pay for pandemic debt mountain'
Within the article is the sentence:
'Only 0.5% of the population paid capital gains tax in 2017-18.'
Yep. That's the squeezed middle alright.
One of the points of the suggested changes is to increase that 0.5%. Currently £12k per annum is exempt from the tax; get rid of that, and a lot more will pay it.
But otherwise, I agree with your point.
If you get rid of the £12K allowance it would be an admin nightmare. Every single share transaction would result in a capital gains gain or loss to be recorded and paid. You could argue it could be much lower but again that would cause a lot more transactions as people try and get below the new limit. I assume it is set at £12K (which is quite high) because people with modest investments don't transact very often so you are spreading a modest gain over decades.
It's not spread over years any more, is it? All the gain is taxed in the one tax year now. Can't even carry over the previous year's allowance. You have to split up your sales between years - which may not be possible or desirable.
I agree. What I meant was that most people who say have privatisation shares don't transact very often (decades) therefore when they do their gain represents many many years of gain, yet it is taxed in a single year, hence the desirability of having a reasonably high limit. Dividends have a £2K threshold for 1 year's gains for instance.
A reduction in this limit to zero will be an admin nightmare, a reduction to say £2K will cause people to just transact every year when they don't want to. As you say not desirable.
Thank you. IIRC one can carry over losses from year to year - but again that doesn't help much.
I presume it will be more a matter of increasing CGT rates. Frtom the current 10/20% to 40%, or perhaps 20% if some of the relevant current year's income tax allowance was unused, would make it consistent with IHT - and perhaps allow the latter's abolition by putting the onus on beneficiaries rather than executors. Which wiould make life a lot easier for executors, if not the legal profession's income streams.
Edit:@ I was recently an executor for an estate not far off the IHT limit and was astounded by the thickness of the paperwork I had to submit to HMRC just to be allowed to apply for confirmation. About 25 different forms and supporting documents, IIRC.
Off course we do have ISAs, which currently are about as useful as a chocolate tea pot to the small time saver/investor (for which they were intended) as nobody actually pays tax on savings, dividends nor capital gains unless they have oodles of money with the new tax free allowances on savings and dividends and the low returns on savings.
They would suddenly become popular if the capital gains tax free element were removed, but if it were then most of these small gains will still not be taxed if moved into the ISA so what is the point?
Isn't Biden's lead more than the outstanding ballots remaining?
Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. If the stats were exactly the same but names reversed it would have been called.
Quite so.
Whilst we all accept that RCP has a GOP lean (as in Tower of Pisa) and their inability to publish authentic polls is well known, I don't think anyone realistically expected RCP to foolishly follow the Trump infant playbook. It simply diminishes their credibility.
If they were so pro Trump they would not have forecast Biden winning over 300 EC votes, as I said RCP have had an absolutely outstanding election and once again are the gold standard poll average, doing better in forecasting the final result than 538, most individual pollsters and yes Trafalgar too
We are all used to the Daily Mail trying to convince us that someone on £100k is on an average income. Sky News have gone one better. They have an article on capital gains tax with the headline:
'Chancellor considers middle class tax raid to pay for pandemic debt mountain'
Within the article is the sentence:
'Only 0.5% of the population paid capital gains tax in 2017-18.'
Yep. That's the squeezed middle alright.
One of the points of the suggested changes is to increase that 0.5%. Currently £12k per annum is exempt from the tax; get rid of that, and a lot more will pay it.
But otherwise, I agree with your point.
If you get rid of the £12K allowance it would be an admin nightmare. Every single share transaction would result in a capital gains gain or loss to be recorded and paid. You could argue it could be much lower but again that would cause a lot more transactions as people try and get below the new limit. I assume it is set at £12K (which is quite high) because people with modest investments don't transact very often so you are spreading a modest gain over decades.
It's not spread over years any more, is it? All the gain is taxed in the one tax year now. Can't even carry over the previous year's allowance. You have to split up your sales between years - which may not be possible or desirable.
I don`t think it was ever spread over years. What did change is that there was indexation relief which was removed (Gordon Brown I think). This is absurd because if you make a £10k gain (having used your CGT allowance) it makes no difference whether the asset to which the gain relates was purchased ten years ago or yesterday.
Removing CGT allowance entirely would be a nightmare for anyone who buys and sells shares. At the moment you pay no tax on aggregated gains up to the CGT allowance but, even better administratively, if your gains are within the allowance AND the proceeds are no more than four times the allowance you don`t even need to enter the gains on your tax return.
The system is great as it is, except I would reinstate indexation.
What should be looked at is whether the CGT tax percentage rate is high enough.
One of the principles of the review is said to be tax simplification, so you might be right. But the overwhelming priority will be to increase income, however awkward that might be. And pace comments above, we're not talking about 'most people'; currently only 0.5% pay the tax. Triple that, and would still be a very small minority of taxpayers.
I'm not particularly well informed about any of this, but change which will be unpopular for some seems quite likely.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Sorry, should have been Eton educated Cameron led the Remain campaign.
The Tory pro-European toffs were of the old One Nation variety - the traditional order should be maintained but the upper-crust had a duty to improve the life chances of those less lucky by birth. In contrast, I get the impression that the likes of Rees-Mogg think the end of the peasantry was a decidedly retrograde step.
We are all used to the Daily Mail trying to convince us that someone on £100k is on an average income. Sky News have gone one better. They have an article on capital gains tax with the headline:
'Chancellor considers middle class tax raid to pay for pandemic debt mountain'
Within the article is the sentence:
'Only 0.5% of the population paid capital gains tax in 2017-18.'
Yep. That's the squeezed middle alright.
One of the points of the suggested changes is to increase that 0.5%. Currently £12k per annum is exempt from the tax; get rid of that, and a lot more will pay it.
But otherwise, I agree with your point.
If you get rid of the £12K allowance it would be an admin nightmare. Every single share transaction would result in a capital gains gain or loss to be recorded and paid. You could argue it could be much lower but again that would cause a lot more transactions as people try and get below the new limit. I assume it is set at £12K (which is quite high) because people with modest investments don't transact very often so you are spreading a modest gain over decades.
It's not spread over years any more, is it? All the gain is taxed in the one tax year now. Can't even carry over the previous year's allowance. You have to split up your sales between years - which may not be possible or desirable.
I agree. What I meant was that most people who say have privatisation shares don't transact very often (decades) therefore when they do their gain represents many many years of gain, yet it is taxed in a single year, hence the desirability of having a reasonably high limit. Dividends have a £2K threshold for 1 year's gains for instance.
A reduction in this limit to zero will be an admin nightmare, a reduction to say £2K will cause people to just transact every year when they don't want to. As you say not desirable.
Thank you. IIRC one can carry over losses from year to year - but again that doesn't help much.
I presume it will be more a matter of increasing CGT rates. Frtom the current 10/20% to 40%, or perhaps 20% if some of the relevant current year's income tax allowance was unused, would make it consistent with IHT - and perhaps allow the latter's abolition by putting the onus on beneficiaries rather than executors. Which wiould make life a lot easier for executors, if not the legal profession's income streams.
Edit:@ I was recently an executor for an estate not far off the IHT limit and was astounded by the thickness of the paperwork I had to submit to HMRC just to be allowed to apply for confirmation. About 25 different forms and supporting documents, IIRC.
Off course we do have ISAs, which currently are about as useful as a chocolate tea pot to the small time saver/investor (for which they were intended) as nobody actually pays tax on savings, dividends nor capital gains unless they have oodles of money with the new tax free allowances on savings and dividends and the low returns on savings.
They would suddenly become popular if the capital gains tax free element were removed, but if it were then most of these small gains will still not be taxed if moved into the ISA so what is the point?
Conservatives - the party of Tax & Spend!
Whoever would have thought such a thing was possible?
If I understand correctly, Britain’s Q3 ‘19 to Q3 ‘20 performance is the worst in Europe.
Sick man at the helm; sick man of Europe once more.
UK did very badly with first wave, but seeing what is happening now in France and Italy, compared to the stabilisation in infection rates in the UK, and it begins to look like the UK has done a lot better second time around.
By the end of 2021 Q1 we would be able to see the benefit if that proves to be the case.
Luckily nothing else is happening in Q1 2021 that could damage our growth prospects.
Indeed. Quite the contrary, the brakes will be removed from the UK economy in Q1 2021.
Because of the vaccine! Exiting transition won't put the brakes on or take them off as we're mysteriously going to continue trading as we are now...
An end to uncertainty in Europe will take the brakes off. Extending transition would be utter madness as it keeps the brakes on the economy as people are uncertain what is going to happen.
Whether its a BINO trade deal (unlikely), a proper FTA (much more likely) or no deal (also unlikely) we need to just get on with it now and end this interminable process.
As you are well aware of how long bespoke FTA's take to be negotiated you know as well as I do that we aren't going to get a UK specific one. We can have a "FTA" - the EEA with our minor tweaks on fishing - and call it whatever you like.
It will not be the EEA. That is not remotely on the table, I can guarantee it won't be that.
And negotiations only take a long time because they don't face the urgency of this one. What you're doing is the same naivety of people who say a vaccine takes seven years to develop.
Not sure the vaccines analogy works in your favour here. We've been incredibly lucky with Covid, as a species. Several bits of new science came on stream at just the right moment (like mRNA vaccines) and some useful shortcuts (like the work on SARS 1) we're all ready to use. It's not just that time pressure has made scientists pull their fingers out
The nearest analogy I can see to that in trade deal terms is for the EU to say to the UK "shall we do a find and replace on Norway or Canada?" (Clue: for all the noise, the UK doesn't want Canada really.)
Mr. Roger, Trump is wealthy, but he's also a political outsider.
If you've seen your factory job shift ten thousand miles east and have a worse job, or none, then being told how great globalisation is may not necessarily be a vote-winner.
Be interesting to see what Biden's response is to the BLM crocodile. Standing up to that nonsense was something Trump got right, and may explain why he got a far higher number of votes than many expected.
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Sorry, should have been Eton educated Cameron led the Remain campaign.
The Tory pro-European toffs were of the old One Nation variety - the traditional order should be maintained but the upper-crust had a duty to improve the life chances of those less lucky by birth. In contrast, I get the impression that the likes of Rees-Mogg think the end of the peasantry was a decidedly retrograde step.
Lord Salisbury was an Old Etonian, as was Alan Clark, there have always been Old Etonians on the hard right not just the One Nation left of the Tory Party, Rees Mogg is no exception
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
538 had multiple predictions up to reflect different odds. This is one of their specific forecasts, does the map look familiar at all?
Yes I know 538 gave a probability of every conceivable result just so as usual Silver can cover his back and say when the result came out he did not give it a 0% chance, it does not change the fact that on the final forecast he went with RCP was closer to the result than he was
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Sorry, should have been Eton educated Cameron led the Remain campaign.
If I understand correctly, Britain’s Q3 ‘19 to Q3 ‘20 performance is the worst in Europe.
Sick man at the helm; sick man of Europe once more.
UK did very badly with first wave, but seeing what is happening now in France and Italy, compared to the stabilisation in infection rates in the UK, and it begins to look like the UK has done a lot better second time around.
By the end of 2021 Q1 we would be able to see the benefit if that proves to be the case.
Luckily nothing else is happening in Q1 2021 that could damage our growth prospects.
Indeed. Quite the contrary, the brakes will be removed from the UK economy in Q1 2021.
Because of the vaccine! Exiting transition won't put the brakes on or take them off as we're mysteriously going to continue trading as we are now...
An end to uncertainty in Europe will take the brakes off. Extending transition would be utter madness as it keeps the brakes on the economy as people are uncertain what is going to happen.
Whether its a BINO trade deal (unlikely), a proper FTA (much more likely) or no deal (also unlikely) we need to just get on with it now and end this interminable process.
As you are well aware of how long bespoke FTA's take to be negotiated you know as well as I do that we aren't going to get a UK specific one. We can have a "FTA" - the EEA with our minor tweaks on fishing - and call it whatever you like.
It will not be the EEA. That is not remotely on the table, I can guarantee it won't be that.
And negotiations only take a long time because they don't face the urgency of this one. What you're doing is the same naivety of people who say a vaccine takes seven years to develop.
I know it won't be the EEA. It will be "UKEU FTA" or something. Just as the EU Turkey Customs union is definitely not the European Customs Union.
I know that you think that we can depart the EEA and CU and avoid the need for customs and standards checks. I agree - we can. By maintaining the exact same trading arrangements as the EU. It won't be forced by the, it will be our sovereign choice. But we will carry on as we are. Because we cannot physically make any changes even if we wanted to.
This is just reality. I know that you deny this reality. But the government now it. The EU know it. Manufacturers know it. Logistics know it. The stress and almost panic that was in the industry a year ago has all gone despite the looming deadline. Because everyone knows that because nothing can be changed that nothing will change.
Don't worry. Shagger will get to triumphantly declare victory over the EU as he parade the pig in the UK's choice of lipstick. And just like the border down the Irish Sea or the border between Kent and the UK his cheerleaders will congratulate him on his New Clothes whilst the rest of us desperately try to stop seeing his cock.
If I understand correctly, Britain’s Q3 ‘19 to Q3 ‘20 performance is the worst in Europe.
Sick man at the helm; sick man of Europe once more.
UK did very badly with first wave, but seeing what is happening now in France and Italy, compared to the stabilisation in infection rates in the UK, and it begins to look like the UK has done a lot better second time around.
By the end of 2021 Q1 we would be able to see the benefit if that proves to be the case.
Luckily nothing else is happening in Q1 2021 that could damage our growth prospects.
Indeed. Quite the contrary, the brakes will be removed from the UK economy in Q1 2021.
Because of the vaccine! Exiting transition won't put the brakes on or take them off as we're mysteriously going to continue trading as we are now...
An end to uncertainty in Europe will take the brakes off. Extending transition would be utter madness as it keeps the brakes on the economy as people are uncertain what is going to happen.
Whether its a BINO trade deal (unlikely), a proper FTA (much more likely) or no deal (also unlikely) we need to just get on with it now and end this interminable process.
As you are well aware of how long bespoke FTA's take to be negotiated you know as well as I do that we aren't going to get a UK specific one. We can have a "FTA" - the EEA with our minor tweaks on fishing - and call it whatever you like.
It will not be the EEA. That is not remotely on the table, I can guarantee it won't be that.
And negotiations only take a long time because they don't face the urgency of this one. What you're doing is the same naivety of people who say a vaccine takes seven years to develop.
I know it won't be the EEA. It will be "UKEU FTA" or something. Just as the EU Turkey Customs union is definitely not the European Customs Union.
I know that you think that we can depart the EEA and CU and avoid the need for customs and standards checks. I agree - we can. By maintaining the exact same trading arrangements as the EU. It won't be forced by the, it will be our sovereign choice. But we will carry on as we are. Because we cannot physically make any changes even if we wanted to.
This is just reality. I know that you deny this reality. But the government now it. The EU know it. Manufacturers know it. Logistics know it. The stress and almost panic that was in the industry a year ago has all gone despite the looming deadline. Because everyone knows that because nothing can be changed that nothing will change.
Don't worry. Shagger will get to triumphantly declare victory over the EU as he parade the pig in the UK's choice of lipstick. And just like the border down the Irish Sea or the border between Kent and the UK his cheerleaders will congratulate him on his New Clothes whilst the rest of us desperately try to stop seeing his cock.
The EEA has four indivisible pillars of freedom: the free movement of goods, people, services and capital.
In your eyes will the "UKEU FTA" have the same four freedoms in the same way?
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun and the Morning Star all backed Leave
There may be some disruption whenever Brexit occurs that was always inevitable.
But its like a hockey stick graph. An initial drop and then an upturn. Because once the disruption has occurred firms that have been caught out for a lack of preparation will be adapting as fast as they can - and the uncertainty will be removed and we can move forwards.
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times ) carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian, Indepedent and FT is about 10-15% of the Sun, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Sorry, should have been Eton educated Cameron led the Remain campaign.
The Tory pro-European toffs were of the old One Nation variety - the traditional order should be maintained but the upper-crust had a duty to improve the life chances of those less lucky by birth. In contrast, I get the impression that the likes of Rees-Mogg think the end of the peasantry was a decidedly retrograde step.
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian/Observer and FT is about 10% of the reach of the Sun, Sun on Sunday, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
There may be some disruption whenever Brexit occurs that was always inevitable.
But its like a hockey stick graph. An initial drop and then an upturn. Because once the disruption has occurred firms that have been caught out for a lack of preparation will be adapting as fast as they can - and the uncertainty will be removed and we can move forwards.
During the campaigns broadcast media was surprisingly neutral, but beforehand it was pro-EU, and afterwards even more pro-EU.
The political leadership of every significant party, excepting UKIP, was pro-EU (well, apparently. Corbyn didn't strain himself).
The distinction between leadership and party messages is important, however. Multiple senior Conservatives and serving cabinet members were supporting Brexit, even if the line from the very top and PM was different. Corbyn was essentially a Brexiteer, but muted himself for the duration of the campaign ; the half-hearted civil service-type letter put through everyone's door by Cameron, in the context of all this , was extremely far from the definitive and blanket support of the governing classes.
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian, Indepedent and FT is about 10-15% of that of the Sun, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
The Times backed Remain on polling day and combined the Leave papers had a circulation of about 4.3 million actually and the Remain papers a circulation of about 2.9 million once you include the Evening Standard which also backed Remain. The ultra establishment papers, the FT and Times, both backed Remain.
When you look at Sunday papers given the Mail on Sunday backed Remain as did the Sunday People the Leave papers (including the Sunday Times) had a circulation of about 3.1 million to 2.6 million for the Remain papers
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
538 had multiple predictions up to reflect different odds. This is one of their specific forecasts, does the map look familiar at all?
Yes I know 538 gave a probability of every conceivable result just so as usual Silver can cover his back and say when the result came out he did not give it a 0% chance, it does not change the fact that on the final forecast he went with RCP was closer to the result than he was
I'm with @HYFUD on this one. Nate Silver's primary objective is to protect his back and business model. We are already starting to see the emergence of "the polling wasn't that bad" which is only true if you include the likes of Rasmussen and Trafalgar, which many denigrated. Strip these parties out, as many were suggesting we should do pre-election, and the polling effort looks a hell of a lot worse. Unfortunately, I suspect that Silver will remain in business, even though he has fundamentally called the last two elections wrongly.
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian/Observer and FT is about 10% of the reach of the Sun, Sun on Sunday, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
No it isn't.
The Mail on Sunday backed Remain.
The Mail, Sunday Times, and Sun, even on their own, have a combined readership many times that of the Independent and FT, for instance.
Mr. Roger, Trump is wealthy, but he's also a political outsider.
If you've seen your factory job shift ten thousand miles east and have a worse job, or none, then being told how great globalisation is may not necessarily be a vote-winner.
Be interesting to see what Biden's response is to the BLM crocodile. Standing up to that nonsense was something Trump got right, and may explain why he got a far higher number of votes than many expected.
It's such a shame that the politics of protecting the indigenous working class in the West from the inequities of globalized capitalism seems to require a good dose of nationalistic xenophobia in order to find success at the ballot box. The upshot of this is it has been hijacked by the Right rather than remaining where it belongs - the Left.
The Left are being punished electorally for not being prepared to get down in the gutter.
OGH, the states only certify they own state's vote, not the total count. If the betting firms are being absolute sticklers, they won't settle this bet until January 6th when the Joint Session of Congress formally counts the EC votes submitted by the states, and certifies that count, as Congress has the ability to throw out EC votes.
Do not Betfair's terms referent to 'projected' EVs ?
It does indeed but its up to Betfair themselves to interpret that.
If Trump is still claiming he's going to win the EC votes and people are still betting on Trump in the exchange then Betfair may decide they want the commission on the extra bets the issue isn't settled yet.
You mean, they are in position to just take peoples money like it’s grown on a tree, why would they want that to end?
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian, Indepedent and FT is about 10-15% of that of the Sun, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
The Times backed Remain on polling day and combined the Leave papers had a circulation of about 4.3 million actually and the Remain papers a circulation of about 2.9 million once you include the Evening Standard which also backed Remain. The ultra establishment papers, the FT and Times, both backed Remain.
When you look at Sunday papers given the Mail on Sunday backed Remain as did the Sunday People the Leave papers (including the Sunday Times) had a circulation of about 3.1 million to 2.6 million for the Remain papers
The first column is of daily papers only. The Sun on Sunday, Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Express and Star on Sunday all backed Brexit. The Evening Standard is also not a national paper.
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
538 had multiple predictions up to reflect different odds. This is one of their specific forecasts, does the map look familiar at all?
Yes I know 538 gave a probability of every conceivable result just so as usual Silver can cover his back and say when the result came out he did not give it a 0% chance, it does not change the fact that on the final forecast he went with RCP was closer to the result than he was
I'm with @HYFUD on this one. Nate Silver's primary objective is to protect his back and business model. We are already starting to see the emergence of "the polling wasn't that bad" which is only true if you include the likes of Rasmussen and Trafalgar, which many denigrated. Strip these parties out, as many were suggesting we should do pre-election, and the polling effort looks a hell of a lot worse. Unfortunately, I suspect that Silver will remain in business, even though he has fundamentally called the last two elections wrongly.
Was the polling that bad? Only NC and Florida was wrong in the final "538 snake"
The EEA has four indivisible pillars of freedom: the free movement of goods, people, services and capital.
In your eyes will the "UKEU FTA" have the same four freedoms in the same way?
If yes it is like the EEA, if no then it is not.
They won't be called four freedoms. They won't even be called inalienable rights. We won't have freedom of movement, we will have movement which we have chosen to be free. We won't be compelled to have open goods and services trading, we will chose to do so. We'll replace the four freedoms with sovereign choices which implement a relationship which in our gift offers free trade and movement.
We literally have no other options. On 1st January 2021 we will have the same product standards and the same zero tariffs and the same customs arrangements as we have now. A different name and a different agreement for the same thing. Because we don't have the ability to change anything.
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian/Observer and FT is about 10% of the reach of the Sun, Sun on Sunday, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
No it isn't.
The Mail on Sunday backed Remain.
The Mail, Sunday Times, and Sun, even on their own, have a combined readership many times that of the Independent and FT, for instance.
I think people may be getting correlation and causation mixed up a bit here: it is entirely possible that the reason they have much larger readerships is because they were for Leave rather than remain. In the case of the News International stable, they tend to go with what they think their readers want: the Sun backed Blair in '97 because he was popular.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Sorry, should have been Eton educated Cameron led the Remain campaign.
The Tory pro-European toffs were of the old One Nation variety - the traditional order should be maintained but the upper-crust had a duty to improve the life chances of those less lucky by birth. In contrast, I get the impression that the likes of Rees-Mogg think the end of the peasantry was a decidedly retrograde step.
Lord Salisbury was an Old Etonian, as was Alan Clark, there have always been Old Etonians on the hard right not just the One Nation left of the Tory Party, Rees Mogg is no exception
Like Rees-Mogg, I always felt that Alan Clark wasn't a true aristocrat but a bit of a brash, new-money type. (That his surname suggests his ancestor was Bob Cratchit should have given him a clue.)
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian/Observer and FT is about 10% of the reach of the Sun, Sun on Sunday, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
No it isn't.
The Mail on Sunday backed Remain.
The Mail, Sunday Times, and Sun, even on their own, have a combined readership many times that of the Independent and FT, for instance.
I think people may be getting correlation and causation mixed up a bit here: it is entirely possible that the reason they have much larger readerships is because they were for Leave rather than remain. In the case of the News International stable, they tend to go with what they think their readers want: the Sun backed Blair in '97 because he was popular.
I personally don't accept that argument at all. The mass media both makes the political weather and also tunes into concerns that were already there. I think the chances of Brexit having happened in the way it did, without a thirty year campaign by key tabloids, particularly since 1989-90, are close to zero, for instance.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Sorry, should have been Eton educated Cameron led the Remain campaign.
And he showed what a waste of money Eton was.
Quite the opposite. Eton gets you the job. It can't make you good at the job. From the point of view of the person involved, getting the job is everything, so Eton is worth every penny. From the point of view of society, it doesn't matter who gets the job, but it is important they are good at it. That is why Eton is a bad thing for society as a whole, even while it is a good thing for those who attend it.
There may be some disruption whenever Brexit occurs that was always inevitable.
But its like a hockey stick graph. An initial drop and then an upturn. Because once the disruption has occurred firms that have been caught out for a lack of preparation will be adapting as fast as they can - and the uncertainty will be removed and we can move forwards.
The brakes will be taken off the economy.
What brakes, precisely?
I already said: uncertainty.
People are waiting to see how all this shakes out. Once its done people can invest with more confidence.
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
538 had multiple predictions up to reflect different odds. This is one of their specific forecasts, does the map look familiar at all?
Yes I know 538 gave a probability of every conceivable result just so as usual Silver can cover his back and say when the result came out he did not give it a 0% chance, it does not change the fact that on the final forecast he went with RCP was closer to the result than he was
I'm with @HYFUD on this one. Nate Silver's primary objective is to protect his back and business model. We are already starting to see the emergence of "the polling wasn't that bad" which is only true if you include the likes of Rasmussen and Trafalgar, which many denigrated. Strip these parties out, as many were suggesting we should do pre-election, and the polling effort looks a hell of a lot worse. Unfortunately, I suspect that Silver will remain in business, even though he has fundamentally called the last two elections wrongly.
Was the polling that bad? Only NC and Florida was wrong in the final "538 snake"
In terms of state calls no but in terms of ramping up the narrative that states like Ohio, Iowa and Texas were in play, and that Wisconsin would be a blow out, yes. If you scroll down half way through you can see the difference:
As I said before though, pollsters like Rasmussen and Trafalgar - which were criticised as being rogue and not really credible - are being included in his numbers by the looks of things. Strip those out and the performance of the "respectable" pollsters looks a lot worse that what Nate is suggesting.
I do remember. It was a clear sign on day 1 of what was in store. Should have been stamped on. Every single lie from that point on should have been reported in no uncertain terms in every single outlet as a lie. His racism should have been reported as racism. His misogyny as misogyny. His corruption as corruption. The media were one of his biggest enablers. They fed the toxic troll.
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian/Observer and FT is about 10% of the reach of the Sun, Sun on Sunday, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
No it isn't.
The Mail on Sunday backed Remain.
The Mail, Sunday Times, and Sun, even on their own, have a combined readership many times that of the Independent and FT, for instance.
Shifting the goalposts, you included the Guardian before you amazingly chose to omit it when I called you on it.
The Guardian has 35 million readers (2020 data, but still) so for that alone for it to be 10% of the reach then the Sun etc would need 350 million readers. The UK population is 67 million.
So another couple of years that Charles can forget the idea of Her Majesty standing down.....
I'd actually like to see this. I think the Queen has done well for this country during the Coronavirus crisis - and Britain needs far more bank holidays in general, for the sake of its mental health and work/life balance, and compared to similar sized European countries.
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
538 had multiple predictions up to reflect different odds. This is one of their specific forecasts, does the map look familiar at all?
Yes I know 538 gave a probability of every conceivable result just so as usual Silver can cover his back and say when the result came out he did not give it a 0% chance, it does not change the fact that on the final forecast he went with RCP was closer to the result than he was
I'm with @HYFUD on this one. Nate Silver's primary objective is to protect his back and business model. We are already starting to see the emergence of "the polling wasn't that bad" which is only true if you include the likes of Rasmussen and Trafalgar, which many denigrated. Strip these parties out, as many were suggesting we should do pre-election, and the polling effort looks a hell of a lot worse. Unfortunately, I suspect that Silver will remain in business, even though he has fundamentally called the last two elections wrongly.
Was the polling that bad? Only NC and Florida was wrong in the final "538 snake"
It was pretty bad. The national lead was 4 not 8. Quite a miss.
Mr. Roger, Trump is wealthy, but he's also a political outsider.
If you've seen your factory job shift ten thousand miles east and have a worse job, or none, then being told how great globalisation is may not necessarily be a vote-winner.
Be interesting to see what Biden's response is to the BLM crocodile. Standing up to that nonsense was something Trump got right, and may explain why he got a far higher number of votes than many expected.
It's such a shame that the politics of protecting the indigenous working class in the West from the inequities of globalized capitalism seems to require a good dose of nationalistic xenophobia in order to find success at the ballot box. The upshot of this is it has been hijacked by the Right rather than remaining where it belongs - the Left.
The Left are being punished electorally for not being prepared to get down in the gutter.
The Left are being punished because they don't give a f*ck about the working classes and the latter have wised up. It's why Starmer will face such a tough job.
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian/Observer and FT is about 10% of the reach of the Sun, Sun on Sunday, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
No it isn't.
The Mail on Sunday backed Remain.
The Mail, Sunday Times, and Sun, even on their own, have a combined readership many times that of the Independent and FT, for instance.
I think people may be getting correlation and causation mixed up a bit here: it is entirely possible that the reason they have much larger readerships is because they were for Leave rather than remain. In the case of the News International stable, they tend to go with what they think their readers want: the Sun backed Blair in '97 because he was popular.
I personally don't accept that argument at all. The mass media both makes the political weather and also tunes into concerns that were already there. I think the chances of Brexit having happened in the way it did, without a thirty year campaign by key tabloids, particularly since 1989-90, are close to zero, for instance.
I think it's a two way process. The recent BBC documentary on Murdoch made the point that Blair committed to a referendum on the Euro before joining to appease Murdoch. Now, he perhaps didn't need to do that, but ultimately Blair and Labour decided that winning power was more important that committing Britain to Europe. Had we joined the Euro, that would have been the end of the matter and there would not have been Brexit.
Of course, the 2008 financial disaster may destroyed the Euro with us in it, but that's another matter.
The EEA has four indivisible pillars of freedom: the free movement of goods, people, services and capital.
In your eyes will the "UKEU FTA" have the same four freedoms in the same way?
If yes it is like the EEA, if no then it is not.
They won't be called four freedoms. They won't even be called inalienable rights. We won't have freedom of movement, we will have movement which we have chosen to be free. We won't be compelled to have open goods and services trading, we will chose to do so. We'll replace the four freedoms with sovereign choices which implement a relationship which in our gift offers free trade and movement.
We literally have no other options. On 1st January 2021 we will have the same product standards and the same zero tariffs and the same customs arrangements as we have now. A different name and a different agreement for the same thing. Because we don't have the ability to change anything.
We are not maintaining free movement. We will not have the same thing.
Same product standards and zero tariffs without the rest of the crap the EU tacks on would be an FTA not the same thing.
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
538 had multiple predictions up to reflect different odds. This is one of their specific forecasts, does the map look familiar at all?
Yes I know 538 gave a probability of every conceivable result just so as usual Silver can cover his back and say when the result came out he did not give it a 0% chance, it does not change the fact that on the final forecast he went with RCP was closer to the result than he was
I'm with @HYFUD on this one. Nate Silver's primary objective is to protect his back and business model. We are already starting to see the emergence of "the polling wasn't that bad" which is only true if you include the likes of Rasmussen and Trafalgar, which many denigrated. Strip these parties out, as many were suggesting we should do pre-election, and the polling effort looks a hell of a lot worse. Unfortunately, I suspect that Silver will remain in business, even though he has fundamentally called the last two elections wrongly.
Was the polling that bad? Only NC and Florida was wrong in the final "538 snake"
In terms of state calls no but in terms of ramping up the narrative that states like Ohio, Iowa and Texas were in play, and that Wisconsin would be a blow out, yes. If you scroll down half way through you can see the difference:
As I said before though, pollsters like Rasmussen and Trafalgar - which were criticised as being rogue and not really credible - are being included in his numbers by the looks of things. Strip those out and the performance of the "respectable" pollsters looks a lot worse that what Nate is suggesting.
I agree. The polls were terrible, especially the polls that were open about their methodology. It may be that Trafalgar has discovered the secret sauce or they could simply be making up their numbers and got lucky, we won't know without knowing more about how their numbers were arrived at. As I understand it, pollsters find it impossible to get people to respond and so they can't get a representative random sample. Not answering pollsters' questions seems to correlate with Republican support, especially when Trump is on the ballot - the polls were OK in 2018. Unless they can control for this via an observable characteristic (like they tried to by sampling enough low education whites, which didn't work) then it's a hard problem to fix.
So another couple of years that Charles can forget the idea of Her Majesty standing down.....
I'd actually like to see this. I think the Queen has done well for this country during the Coronavirus crisis - and Britain needs far more bank holidays in general, for the sake of its mental health and work-life balance, and compared to similar sized European countries.
Which bits? I haven't seen her do anything? Not suggesting she should have volunteered on a Covid ward, but I'm interested what you think she has done?
Mr. Roger, Trump is wealthy, but he's also a political outsider.
If you've seen your factory job shift ten thousand miles east and have a worse job, or none, then being told how great globalisation is may not necessarily be a vote-winner.
Be interesting to see what Biden's response is to the BLM crocodile. Standing up to that nonsense was something Trump got right, and may explain why he got a far higher number of votes than many expected.
It's such a shame that the politics of protecting the indigenous working class in the West from the inequities of globalized capitalism seems to require a good dose of nationalistic xenophobia in order to find success at the ballot box. The upshot of this is it has been hijacked by the Right rather than remaining where it belongs - the Left.
The Left are being punished electorally for not being prepared to get down in the gutter.
The Left are being punished because they don't give a f*ck about the working classes and the latter have wised up. It's why Starmer will face such a tough job.
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian, Indepedent and FT is about 10-15% of that of the Sun, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
The Times backed Remain on polling day and combined the Leave papers had a circulation of about 4.3 million actually and the Remain papers a circulation of about 2.9 million once you include the Evening Standard which also backed Remain. The ultra establishment papers, the FT and Times, both backed Remain.
When you look at Sunday papers given the Mail on Sunday backed Remain as did the Sunday People the Leave papers (including the Sunday Times) had a circulation of about 3.1 million to 2.6 million for the Remain papers
The first column is of daily papers only. The Sun on Sunday, Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Express and Star on Sunday all backed Brexit. The Evening Standard is also not a national paper.
No, all the Sunday papers were included, the Evening Standard has a circulation higher than the Telegraph, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian, the Independent and the Express.
The Evening Standard was therefore the highest circulation Remain backing newspaper so must be included
Mr. Boy, considering that big business, the political establishment, and broadcast media are all pro-EU, it seems to somewhat stretch credibility to suggest the drive to leave it is primarily led by elites.
The broadcast media, as Peston explained, in fact largely followed the lead of the tabloids. The wealthiest businessman in Britain at the time, Jim Ratcliffe, was supporting Brexit, along with several other magnates, such as Dyson - others weren't ; that was a fight between elites, rather than between the elites and the populace. The media-business oligarchy of the print media was supporting Brexit by a ratio of about 9:1. The vast majority of the governing party's membership, and many of its representatives, was supporting Brexit, too.
It was more split than that, the FT, the Times, the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent all backed Remain, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and the Sun all backed Leave
The Times ( not the Sunday Times )carried mixed messages, and the combined reach of the Mirror, Guardian/Observer and FT is about 10% of the reach of the Sun, Sun on Sunday, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Mail, Star and Telegraph.
No it isn't.
The Mail on Sunday backed Remain.
The Mail, Sunday Times, and Sun, even on their own, have a combined readership many times that of the Independent and FT, for instance.
I think people may be getting correlation and causation mixed up a bit here: it is entirely possible that the reason they have much larger readerships is because they were for Leave rather than remain. In the case of the News International stable, they tend to go with what they think their readers want: the Sun backed Blair in '97 because he was popular.
I personally don't accept that argument at all. The mass media both makes the political weather and also tunes into concerns that were already there. I think the chances of Brexit having happened in the way it did, without a thirty year campaign by key tabloids, particularly since 1989-90, are close to zero, for instance.
Bit of both, I suspect. I don't think there's much question that Murdoch doesn't like the EU, because it's too big for him to bully, and the businesses he's in follow linguistic-national boundaries so it doesn't help him much.
But The Sun has always followed its target audience's opinion and amplified it. As with social media, that's shrewd business. But positive feedbacks like that are horribly unstable.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Not really true, Eton educated Macmillan was the one who first asked for us to join the Common Market and Eton educated Cameron led the Leave campaign. Grammar school educated Enoch Powell was the earliest and most notable Tory Brexiteer
Sorry, should have been Eton educated Cameron led the Remain campaign.
And he showed what a waste of money Eton was.
Quite the opposite. Eton gets you the job. It can't make you good at the job. From the point of view of the person involved, getting the job is everything, so Eton is worth every penny. From the point of view of society, it doesn't matter who gets the job, but it is important they are good at it. That is why Eton is a bad thing for society as a whole, even while it is a good thing for those who attend it.
Self evidently. Yet so entrenched that merely proposing its charity status and tax breaks be removed is deemed to be class war.
Mr. Roger, Trump is wealthy, but he's also a political outsider.
If you've seen your factory job shift ten thousand miles east and have a worse job, or none, then being told how great globalisation is may not necessarily be a vote-winner.
Be interesting to see what Biden's response is to the BLM crocodile. Standing up to that nonsense was something Trump got right, and may explain why he got a far higher number of votes than many expected.
It's such a shame that the politics of protecting the indigenous working class in the West from the inequities of globalized capitalism seems to require a good dose of nationalistic xenophobia in order to find success at the ballot box. The upshot of this is it has been hijacked by the Right rather than remaining where it belongs - the Left.
The Left are being punished electorally for not being prepared to get down in the gutter.
The Left are being punished because they don't give a f*ck about the working classes and the latter have wised up. It's why Starmer will face such a tough job.
The working class in the US wised up and just handed Trump his arse.
So another couple of years that Charles can forget the idea of Her Majesty standing down.....
I'd actually like to see this. I think the Queen has done well for this country during the Coronavirus crisis - and Britain needs far more bank holidays in general, for the sake of its mental health and work-life balance, and compared to similar sized European countries.
Which bits? I haven't seen her do anything? Not suggesting she should have volunteered on a Covid ward, but I'm interested what you think she has done?
I think this was the best-balanced statement by any major western head of state during the Covid crisis.
I agree. The polls were terrible, especially the polls that were open about their methodology. It may be that Trafalgar has discovered the secret sauce or they could simply be making up their numbers and got lucky, we won't know without knowing more about how their numbers were arrived at. As I understand it, pollsters find it impossible to get people to respond and so they can't get a representative random sample. Not answering pollsters' questions seems to correlate with Republican support, especially when Trump is on the ballot - the polls were OK in 2018. Unless they can control for this via an observable characteristic (like they tried to by sampling enough low education whites, which didn't work) then it's a hard problem to fix.
"It was Cornoanvirus that skewed the sample" seems such a simplistic take to answer why the polls were so wrong but it really does have a lot to commend to it as to what happened.
People who take Covid more seriously are more likely to be home are more likely to answer phone calls. Especially OAPs. OAPs are the group who seriously failed to bark, polled as breaking for Biden decisively, actuality not really.
The chumocracy leading to the kleptocracy is alive and well with lots of close bonds highlighted, but the link of both live in Islington is exceedingly tenuous, most people in Islington dont know each other!
Cummings, Allegra and - before his divorce - Boris - live within a circle with approx 500m radius.
I think if you explore the private school/Oxbridge/wealth nexus you will probably find it more fruitful. These people all know each other, marry each other, do business with each other. Brexit has always been about the old establishment reasserting themselves, big fish in their small pond.
Not sure I’d assign Brexit as the impulse for this.
It seems to be something inherent to the modern-day Tory Party, which as Perry Anderson points out in his latest magisterial essay on “Ukania” in the NLR, is reverting to rule by Old Etonians after a long period roughing it with grammar school types.
Brexit isn't the impulse, but it is part of the reversion. Grammar school Tories like Heath took us into the EU, Thatcher understood the EU's usefulness even if she distrusted the Germans, and successfully moulded it in a meritocratic free market direction via the Single Market. A continental European colleague explains Brexit as happening when the English upper class realised they'd been priced out of the Chelsea housing market, which seems plausible to me.
Except it doesn't explain why the public who are not upper class voted for it.
Because they blamed the EU for immigration and thought there would be more money for the NHS.
Right, so pinning it on the upper classes is dumb.
Not really. Imagining that Brexit is some kind of pure expression of the people's will and ignoring the elite interests that bankrolled it and organised it is dumb.
It's not either/or. The original post posited that Brexit occured as a result of upper class opinion and that was that. It infantilised the public. People who voted for it, like me, cannot escape responsibility by claiming being duped by elites. As being duped is partly the fault of the duped.
Who cares, RCP are judged on their forecasts before the election not when they finally confirm the winner which they will still do once Pennsylvania certifies its results.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
538 had multiple predictions up to reflect different odds. This is one of their specific forecasts, does the map look familiar at all?
Yes I know 538 gave a probability of every conceivable result just so as usual Silver can cover his back and say when the result came out he did not give it a 0% chance, it does not change the fact that on the final forecast he went with RCP was closer to the result than he was
I'm with @HYFUD on this one. Nate Silver's primary objective is to protect his back and business model. We are already starting to see the emergence of "the polling wasn't that bad" which is only true if you include the likes of Rasmussen and Trafalgar, which many denigrated. Strip these parties out, as many were suggesting we should do pre-election, and the polling effort looks a hell of a lot worse. Unfortunately, I suspect that Silver will remain in business, even though he has fundamentally called the last two elections wrongly.
Was the polling that bad? Only NC and Florida was wrong in the final "538 snake"
It was pretty bad. The national lead was 4 not 8. Quite a miss.
The analysis that a national lead of 3 was the flipping point seems spot on with hindsight.
Also the betting markets were very good on the state betting, how many states did the underdog win in? Georgia was 2.3ish democrats, not sure if North Carolina went off with Dems as fav, but think the rest were all the right way around?
One day someone at the top of government will ask themselves why they seem to be surrounded by rude, needlessly abrasive, insecure clowns. Who appointed them?
So another couple of years that Charles can forget the idea of Her Majesty standing down.....
I'd actually like to see this. I think the Queen has done well for this country during the Coronavirus crisis - and Britain needs far more bank holidays in general, for the sake of its mental health and work-life balance, and compared to similar sized European countries.
Which bits? I haven't seen her do anything? Not suggesting she should have volunteered on a Covid ward, but I'm interested what you think she has done?
I think this was the best-balanced statement by any major western head of state during the Covid crisis.
Comments
But its like a hockey stick graph. An initial drop and then an upturn. Because once the disruption has occurred firms that have been caught out for a lack of preparation will be adapting as fast as they can - and the uncertainty will be removed and we can move forwards.
The brakes will be taken off the economy.
And negotiations only take a long time because they don't face the urgency of this one. What you're doing is the same naivety of people who say a vaccine takes seven years to develop.
Removing CGT allowance entirely would be a nightmare for anyone who buys and sells shares. At the moment you pay no tax on aggregated gains up to the CGT allowance but, even better administratively, if your gains are within the allowance AND the proceeds are no more than four times the allowance you don`t even need to enter the gains on your tax return.
The system is great as it is, except I would reinstate indexation.
What should be looked at is whether the CGT tax percentage rate is high enough.
Whilst we all accept that RCP has a GOP lean (as in Tower of Pisa) and their inability to publish authentic polls is well known, I don't think anyone realistically expected RCP to foolishly follow the Trump infant playbook. It simply diminishes their credibility.
On that RCP had an outstanding election, their final forecast of Biden 319 and Trump 219 almost spot on and putting 538's final forecast of Biden 348 and Trump 190 to shame
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/2020_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
They would suddenly become popular if the capital gains tax free element were removed, but if it were then most of these small gains will still not be taxed if moved into the ISA so what is the point?
But the overwhelming priority will be to increase income, however awkward that might be. And pace comments above, we're not talking about 'most people'; currently only 0.5% pay the tax. Triple that, and would still be a very small minority of taxpayers.
I'm not particularly well informed about any of this, but change which will be unpopular for some seems quite likely.
Whoever would have thought such a thing was possible?
We've been incredibly lucky with Covid, as a species. Several bits of new science came on stream at just the right moment (like mRNA vaccines) and some useful shortcuts (like the work on SARS 1) we're all ready to use. It's not just that time pressure has made scientists pull their fingers out
The nearest analogy I can see to that in trade deal terms is for the EU to say to the UK "shall we do a find and replace on Norway or Canada?" (Clue: for all the noise, the UK doesn't want Canada really.)
If you've seen your factory job shift ten thousand miles east and have a worse job, or none, then being told how great globalisation is may not necessarily be a vote-winner.
Be interesting to see what Biden's response is to the BLM crocodile. Standing up to that nonsense was something Trump got right, and may explain why he got a far higher number of votes than many expected.
538 had multiple predictions up to reflect different odds. This is one of their specific forecasts, does the map look familiar at all?
I know that you think that we can depart the EEA and CU and avoid the need for customs and standards checks. I agree - we can. By maintaining the exact same trading arrangements as the EU. It won't be forced by the, it will be our sovereign choice. But we will carry on as we are. Because we cannot physically make any changes even if we wanted to.
This is just reality. I know that you deny this reality. But the government now it. The EU know it. Manufacturers know it. Logistics know it. The stress and almost panic that was in the industry a year ago has all gone despite the looming deadline. Because everyone knows that because nothing can be changed that nothing will change.
Don't worry. Shagger will get to triumphantly declare victory over the EU as he parade the pig in the UK's choice of lipstick. And just like the border down the Irish Sea or the border between Kent and the UK his cheerleaders will congratulate him on his New Clothes whilst the rest of us desperately try to stop seeing his cock.
During the campaigns broadcast media was surprisingly neutral, but beforehand it was pro-EU, and afterwards even more pro-EU.
The political leadership of every significant party, excepting UKIP, was pro-EU (well, apparently. Corbyn didn't strain himself).
In your eyes will the "UKEU FTA" have the same four freedoms in the same way?
If yes it is like the EEA, if no then it is not.
The Mail on Sunday backed Remain.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?cid=rrpromo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hql8OnIRJbU&ab_channel=TheLateLateShowwithJamesCorden
seems like a very long time ago
When you look at Sunday papers given the Mail on Sunday backed Remain as did the Sunday People the Leave papers (including the Sunday Times) had a circulation of about 3.1 million to 2.6 million for the Remain papers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
The Left are being punished electorally for not being prepared to get down in the gutter.
Once he has threatened to resign and had his bluff called he loses his power and control regardless. That is surely good for the country.
We literally have no other options. On 1st January 2021 we will have the same product standards and the same zero tariffs and the same customs arrangements as we have now. A different name and a different agreement for the same thing. Because we don't have the ability to change anything.
In the case of the News International stable, they tend to go with what they think their readers want: the Sun backed Blair in '97 because he was popular.
People are waiting to see how all this shakes out. Once its done people can invest with more confidence.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-werent-great-but-thats-pretty-normal/
As I said before though, pollsters like Rasmussen and Trafalgar - which were criticised as being rogue and not really credible - are being included in his numbers by the looks of things. Strip those out and the performance of the "respectable" pollsters looks a lot worse that what Nate is suggesting.
The Guardian has 35 million readers (2020 data, but still) so for that alone for it to be 10% of the reach then the Sun etc would need 350 million readers. The UK population is 67 million.
Of course, the 2008 financial disaster may destroyed the Euro with us in it, but that's another matter.
Same product standards and zero tariffs without the rest of the crap the EU tacks on would be an FTA not the same thing.
As I understand it, pollsters find it impossible to get people to respond and so they can't get a representative random sample. Not answering pollsters' questions seems to correlate with Republican support, especially when Trump is on the ballot - the polls were OK in 2018. Unless they can control for this via an observable characteristic (like they tried to by sampling enough low education whites, which didn't work) then it's a hard problem to fix.
But for the benefit of HYUFD who misuses the term: It would be treason if you try to ensure she does not make it.
The Evening Standard was therefore the highest circulation Remain backing newspaper so must be included
I don't think there's much question that Murdoch doesn't like the EU, because it's too big for him to bully, and the businesses he's in follow linguistic-national boundaries so it doesn't help him much.
But The Sun has always followed its target audience's opinion and amplified it. As with social media, that's shrewd business. But positive feedbacks like that are horribly unstable.
There's a bit of physics for you, Dom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2klmuggOElE
People who take Covid more seriously are more likely to be home are more likely to answer phone calls. Especially OAPs. OAPs are the group who seriously failed to bark, polled as breaking for Biden decisively, actuality not really.
Stopping the spread of Covid-19 is assumed to matter more than other health issues, more than ordinary freedoms, more than common humanity
Jonathan Sumption" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/11/lockdown-laws-leave-forno-place-common-sense-individual-judgment/
Also the betting markets were very good on the state betting, how many states did the underdog win in? Georgia was 2.3ish democrats, not sure if North Carolina went off with Dems as fav, but think the rest were all the right way around?