politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s paradox: The huge increase in members hasn’t led t
Comments
-
But there are not 2 options...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, expecting the government to have a plan for both options
That is the problem, as explained in the article0 -
Another middle-aged white guy.AndreaParma_82 said:Labour Liverpool Metro Mayor candidate is Steve Rotherham, Corbyn's PPS and Liverpool Walton MP
Wow, didn't see that coming!0 -
Remainers don't cook or eat at home was my conclusion. Or spend much time at home.JonnyJimmy said:Favourite brands of Remainers & Leavers:
Top 10 brands: Leave voters
HP Sauce
Bisto
ITV News
The Health Lottery
Birds Eye
Iceland
Sky News
Cathedral City
PG Tips
Richmond sausages
Top 10 brands: Remain voters
BBC.co.uk
BBC iPlayer
Instagram
London Underground
Spotify
Airbnb
LinkedIn
Virgin Trains
Twitter
EasyJet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36970535
What kind of a loser makes the BBC their favourite TWO brands?0 -
I've lived in London for nearly 20 years and in that time the RMT and (to a lesser extent) ASLEF have made a fetish of making travelling Londoners' lives miserable on the flimsiest excuse.stodge said:
As I've already stated, I'm not opposed to DCO in principle. What I'm opposed to is no other member of railway staff on each service. Two or three minutes between London Underground stations is one thing - half an hour or more between railway stations is something else.MaxPB said:When one of the busiest transport systems in the world is run with driver operated doors with very high levels of safety (after the unions telling us otherwise) and half of the commuter network is already using DCO, surely converting the other half is sensible.
The issue is that the RMT don't want to settle it, they want to try and force the franchise to be nationalised, that has always been their ultimate aim. In the end we will fully automate our railways and then everyone is out of work. Look at how McDonalds are reacting to the idea of a $15 minimum wage in the US.
Having a medically-trained competent member of railway staff on a service is invaluable - call them whatever you like - but as a source of information, aid or simply reassurance it's a positive.
I can't see an issue with this - unfortunately, there seem to be Conservatives whose sole desire is to "break" the RMT - the Party's obsession with destroying organised labour continues regrettably.
Enough already.0 -
They'll want him to do debates because their ratings go up when he's on i think he will try to have them on his terms like how we have our debates one at a time.MrsB said:
Unless people have properly woken up to Trump by then and as a result the TV companies have the nerve to empty chair him....nunu said:
Why are we asumming Trump will agree to do Three debates? I think he'll do one. He's not a "debater" kind of guy, and will get so much publicity for refusing to do a debate it won't have mattered if he does 3 or not.HYUFD said:
Well of course that could happen too but Trump does need a good performance in the debates and Hillary to have a relatively poor one to have a real chance in NovemberJackW said:
Quite correct.HYUFD said:A firewall in August may not necessarily still be there in November, especially after the debates but for now it does look good for Hillary
Trump may tank in the debates and the Clinton firewall would be substantially higher .... Is that what you meant? ....
0 -
Inunu said:
Lol at the BBC and Twiter making it three times in the top three.JonnyJimmy said:Favourite brands of Remainers & Leavers:
Top 10 brands: Leave voters
HP Sauce
Bisto
ITV News
The Health Lottery
Birds Eye
Iceland
Sky News
Cathedral City
PG Tips
Richmond sausages
Top 10 brands: Remain voters
BBC.co.uk
BBC iPlayer
Instagram
London Underground
Spotify
Airbnb
LinkedIn
Virgin Trains
Twitter
EasyJet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36970535
What kind of a loser makes the BBC their favourite TWO brands?
at LinkedIn. Place I associate with the sad ineffective losers I avoided at work, and keep trying to be friends with me a decade later. 0 -
Only about 5000 votes? Where are the surge in members? They can't even be bothered to vote for Region mayor?AndreaParma_82 said:Rotheram 2,029
Anderson 1,641
Berger 1,202
Run off:
Rotheram 2,670
Anderson 2,0420 -
@Verulamius
'I commute on Thameslink. The trains are DOO (driver only operated) with no guards, and this includes 12 car trains. This is part of the same franchise as Southern (run by GTR).
Similarly Gatwick Express trains are DOO, also run by GTR.
As a commuter I struggle to see why similar trains (eg class 377) run by the same company for the same franchise over the same tracks must have guards on some but not on others.'
When did passengers or anyone else for that matter, ask the RMT to speak on their behalf about safety ?0 -
London.nunu said:
Only about 5000 votes? Where are the surge in members?AndreaParma_82 said:Rotheram 2,029
Anderson 1,641
Berger 1,202
Run off:
Rotheram 2,670
Anderson 2,042
0 -
It's the new model for ambitious Labour MPs who despair of a life in opposition. Keep onside of Corbyn in order to get selected as a Labour mayoral candidate. Once that's sorted, distance yourself from him in order to appeal to the wider electorate. Having been elected, resign from parliament in order to achieve something in your future political life.AndreaParma_82 said:Labour Liverpool Metro Mayor candidate is Steve Rotherham, Corbyn's PPS and Liverpool Walton MP
0 -
Cut off to vote was being a member on 19 July 2015. Same as Greater Manchester and West Midlands selection announced yesterday.
Turnout in the Liverpool selection was 72% of eligible members.nunu said:
Only about 5000 votes? Where are the surge in members? They can't even be bothered to vote for Region mayor?AndreaParma_82 said:Rotheram 2,029
Anderson 1,641
Berger 1,202
Run off:
Rotheram 2,670
Anderson 2,0420 -
Not just the Brexit campaigners:Scott_P said:The government should have had a plan, say the Brexit campaigners.
"The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments
including the FCO to plan for the possibility that the electorate would vote to leave
the EU amounted to gross negligence." (House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee)
"we expected the Government at least to set out what action would be required in the short term following a possible vote for the UK to leave the European Union... We consider it a failing on the part of the Government that it did not address possible security implications of the UK leaving the European Union." (House of Lord/House of Commons Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy)
0 -
That was a very interesting and informative broadcast. Thanks for that. Explained why motivating the DNV-ers to vote is not the magic bullet under FPTP for Labour. If it is to provide success, then it is going to be a long hard road.TOPPING said:
Indeed and we shall see. Of course as a purist, I hope so. If now is the the time for socialism, and the people rise up to demand it, then so be it.BudG said:
I don't think it will seem like the same old politics where there is little to choose between the two main Parties. In fact they can see that JC is fighting to ensure that there IS a big difference between the two main Parties.TOPPING said:
And if they have got that far, surely it will seem for all the world like the same old politics. Do you think such previous DNV-ers will now throw down their ploughshares and pick up their swords for the messy fight ahead?BudG said:
I didn't say that did I?TOPPING said:
It's a compelling picture. But...
You are saying that these disinterested people who probably didn't even vote before are now alive to the minutiae and nuances of the PLP, the Deputy Leader, and so forth, and are angry?
Seems a big jump to me.
They don't need to be aware of minutae and nuances to know that that PLP are out to remove Corbyn.. and that creates obvious anger.
To that end, I think a lot will be prepared to fight, although for most their keyboard will be their weapon of choice, not a sword (or a brick, hopefully)
The issue of non-voters was well-examined here, I think:
bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06950lm0 -
I think both camps are talking bollocks. The BoE has taken what measures it sees fit; Hammond will do likewise in the Autumn.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, expecting the government to have a plan for both options in a 50/50 referendum is not 'making your own failing someone else's problem', it's expecting a basic level of competence from those tasked with governing the country.
Some Brexiteers suppose disentangling ourselves from a 43-year old process of integration is trivial and that we have some magical leverage that will force the EU to give us what we wish with few, if any, meaningful concessions. Stupid.
Some Remainers seem to be fundamentally contradictory; either it's so complex to withdraw that we really, really shouldn't bother, or the Vote.Leave campaign, sans government resources, should have developed a clear-cut program plan for the UK's exit. Stupid.
While there are some broad options that we've beaten to death on here, May has to consult her stakeholders to decide our negotiating position, agree red lines and topics/areas for concession before she goes into bat.
That couldn't reasonably have been done prior to the EUref result. From experience, in far less complex (but still large) commercial negotiations, it can take months just to perform the initial stakeholder engagement.0 -
Does this mean Rotheram will be creating a by-election ?
Must be in the top 5 safe Lab seats in the country.0 -
True, but what I was getting at was the NY Times assertion that such words can lead to actions by others. A lot has been said about Trump - perhaps justifiably - but you could argue that the rhetoric may have contributed to that (British) kid trying to do him in.Chris said:
I'd have thought that would make it less likely for any normal person to make "jokes" about his supporters assassinating his opponent.tlg86 said:
Very fair comment; though we should remember Trump himself has been subject to an assassination attempt - albeit a pretty rubbish one.
The more I see and hear about Trump, the more abnormal his behaviour seems to me.
Then again, considering Trump's attitudes, perhaps it was the judges who were his suggested assassination target.
0 -
Mr. P, the two options in the referendum (Leave/Remain).0
-
It might surprise those not familiar with Labour party procedures, not least new members and High Court judges, that long freeze date deadlines in Labour selections has always been the norm not the exception.AndreaParma_82 said:Cut off to vote was being a member on July 2015. Same as Greater Manchester and West Midlands selection announced yesterday.
Turnout in the Liverpool selection was 72% of eligible members.nunu said:
Only about 5000 votes? Where are the surge in members? They can't even be bothered to vote for Region mayor?AndreaParma_82 said:Rotheram 2,029
Anderson 1,641
Berger 1,202
Run off:
Rotheram 2,670
Anderson 2,0420 -
LEAVE voters will not read about this since the news item is on bbc.co.uk.JonnyJimmy said:Favourite brands of Remainers & Leavers:
Top 10 brands: Leave voters
HP Sauce
Bisto
ITV News
The Health Lottery
Birds Eye
Iceland
Sky News
Cathedral City
PG Tips
Richmond sausages
Top 10 brands: Remain voters
BBC.co.uk
BBC iPlayer
Instagram
London Underground
Spotify
Airbnb
LinkedIn
Virgin Trains
Twitter
EasyJet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36970535
What kind of a loser makes the BBC their favourite TWO brands?0 -
Yes, at number 5.Pulpstar said:Does this mean Rotheram will be creating a by-election ?
Must be in the top 5 safe Lab seats in the country.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/mps-maj.htm0 -
late Sep / early OctMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Price, put on a few pounds. When will the result be known?
0 -
Absolutely.David_Evershed said:
Trump saying that it would be a horrible day confirms he WAS advocating assassination or at least to threaten assassination and scare Clinton.Pulpstar said:
Trump did add that it would be a "horrible day", so I don't think he was condoning it - just like he said that 'he' didn't want to rule Ted Cruz out but that people 'might look at it'...Chris said:
I'd have thought that would make it less likely for any normal person to make "jokes" about his supporters assassinating his opponent.tlg86 said:
Very fair comment; though we should remember Trump himself has been subject to an assassination attempt - albeit a pretty rubbish one.
The more I see and hear about Trump, the more abnormal his behaviour seems to me.
Then again, considering Trump's attitudes, perhaps it was the judges who were his suggested assassination target.0 -
Again a false argument.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, the two options in the referendum (Leave/Remain).
You could plan for Remain (very few unknowns)
You can't legitimately plan for the outcome of opening Pandora's box, other than what they actually did (calm the markets, set up a ministry)0 -
Mr. Price, cheers.0
-
Mr. P, I'm not sure that leaving the EU is quite the near-universal catastrophe that opening Pandora's Box was...
Edited extra bit: not to mention, the Government could've and should've had in place the most basic aspects of a plan to leave, form a new arrangement with the EU, and develop the UK's position (both in terms of potentially joining EFTA/EEA and forming new bilateral trade agreements).0 -
That's a huge freeze period. I'd call it excessive. 3-6 months is fair.Wulfrun_Phil said:
It might surprise those not familiar with Labour party procedures, not least new members and High Court judges, that long freeze date deadlines in Labour selections has always been the norm not the exception.AndreaParma_82 said:Cut off to vote was being a member on July 2015. Same as Greater Manchester and West Midlands selection announced yesterday.
Turnout in the Liverpool selection was 72% of eligible members.nunu said:
Only about 5000 votes? Where are the surge in members? They can't even be bothered to vote for Region mayor?AndreaParma_82 said:Rotheram 2,029
Anderson 1,641
Berger 1,202
Run off:
Rotheram 2,670
Anderson 2,0420 -
I know. I work on Crossrail which is going fully DOO.david_herdson said:
In no small number of places, it's the present.Casino_Royale said:
Short version: it's about jobs.MikeSmithson said:Excellent article on background to the Southern dispute.
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/last-stand-old-guard/
DOO is the future.0 -
It doesn't reflect well on the BBC re claims of pro-Remain bias.David_Evershed said:
LEAVE voters will not read about this since the news item is on bbc.co.uk.JonnyJimmy said:Favourite brands of Remainers & Leavers:
Top 10 brands: Leave voters
HP Sauce
Bisto
ITV News
The Health Lottery
Birds Eye
Iceland
Sky News
Cathedral City
PG Tips
Richmond sausages
Top 10 brands: Remain voters
BBC.co.uk
BBC iPlayer
Instagram
London Underground
Spotify
Airbnb
LinkedIn
Virgin Trains
Twitter
EasyJet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36970535
What kind of a loser makes the BBC their favourite TWO brands?0 -
Precisely so. That extra member of staff costs a lot and can be the difference between a profitable and non-profitable service on marginal routes.MaxPB said:
Someone who provides reassurance at doubling the staffing costs per journey. Also remember that Southern is a commuter franchise, I doubt that they have services with such long gaps between stations.stodge said:
As I've already stated, I'm not opposed to DCO in principle. What I'm opposed to is no other member of railway staff on each service. Two or three minutes between London Underground stations is one thing - half an hour or more between railway stations is something else.MaxPB said:When one of the busiest transport systems in the world is run with driver operated doors with very high levels of safety (after the unions telling us otherwise) and half of the commuter network is already using DCO, surely converting the other half is sensible.
The issue is that the RMT don't want to settle it, they want to try and force the franchise to be nationalised, that has always been their ultimate aim. In the end we will fully automate our railways and then everyone is out of work. Look at how McDonalds are reacting to the idea of a $15 minimum wage in the US.
Having a medically-trained competent member of railway staff on a service is invaluable - call them whatever you like - but as a source of information, aid or simply reassurance it's a positive.
I can't see an issue with this - unfortunately, there seem to be Conservatives whose sole desire is to "break" the RMT - the Party's obsession with destroying organised labour continues regrettably.
I'd rather see an extensive, and extending, economically self-sustaining rail network than crew trains the same way as we did in the 1950s just because we're comfortable with it, but perhaps losing routes and services as a result.0 -
We could not have a detailed plan because it would depend on the outcome of negotiations with the EU and other third parties.Chelyabinsk said:
Not just the Brexit campaigners:Scott_P said:The government should have had a plan, say the Brexit campaigners.
"The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments
including the FCO to plan for the possibility that the electorate would vote to leave
the EU amounted to gross negligence." (House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee)
"we expected the Government at least to set out what action would be required in the short term following a possible vote for the UK to leave the European Union... We consider it a failing on the part of the Government that it did not address possible security implications of the UK leaving the European Union." (House of Lord/House of Commons Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy)
However, we could have had a plan to construct a plan about negotiations.
0 -
Interesting that Rotheram is leaving the PLP, a big Corbyn ally..
Also Reek had been loyal to the last, and is now going.0 -
Was the issue not that they were actively signing up new members as late as May with the explicit promise of a vote in any leadership election, therefore that promise was misleading in the eyes of the judge?PlatoSaid said:
That's a huge freeze period. I'd call it excessive. 3-6 months is fair.Wulfrun_Phil said:
It might surprise those not familiar with Labour party procedures, not least new members and High Court judges, that long freeze date deadlines in Labour selections has always been the norm not the exception.AndreaParma_82 said:Cut off to vote was being a member on July 2015. Same as Greater Manchester and West Midlands selection announced yesterday.
Turnout in the Liverpool selection was 72% of eligible members.nunu said:
Only about 5000 votes? Where are the surge in members? They can't even be bothered to vote for Region mayor?AndreaParma_82 said:Rotheram 2,029
Anderson 1,641
Berger 1,202
Run off:
Rotheram 2,670
Anderson 2,042
The concert of a freeze is fine, our party does it and we all know the rules, but Labour's NEC pretty much made up the rules as they went along.0 -
Hear, Hear!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, expecting the government to have a plan for both options in a 50/50 referendum is not 'making your own failing someone else's problem', it's expecting a basic level of competence from those tasked with governing the country.
0 -
I think Cameron can be legitimately criticized for misrepresenting the UK's position to our EU27 partners. I checked back on the polling records. In terms of best differential, Remain were +19 in Jan '16, (though that margin was as low as +2 in other polls).Scott_P said:
Again a false argument.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, the two options in the referendum (Leave/Remain).
You could plan for Remain (very few unknowns)
You can't legitimately plan for the outcome of opening Pandora's box, other than what they actually did (calm the markets, set up a ministry)
I think he let Merkel form the impression that a Remain win was in the bag. That's just a mild criticism though. I don't think he'd thought through the impact of the migrant crisis, or that the UK's recovery would outpace the EU's by such a margin. Thus the net migration figures were a huge shock.0 -
We could have had targets - an idea of what we wanted to achieve. (Since I foresee the argument, saying what we wanted to achieve is Remaining misses the point).David_Evershed said:
We could not have a detailed plan because it would depend on the outcome of negotiations with the EU and other third parties.Chelyabinsk said:
Not just the Brexit campaigners:Scott_P said:The government should have had a plan, say the Brexit campaigners.
"The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments
including the FCO to plan for the possibility that the electorate would vote to leave
the EU amounted to gross negligence." (House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee)
"we expected the Government at least to set out what action would be required in the short term following a possible vote for the UK to leave the European Union... We consider it a failing on the part of the Government that it did not address possible security implications of the UK leaving the European Union." (House of Lord/House of Commons Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy)
However, we could have had a plan to construct a plan about negotiations.0 -
You mean like set up a dedicated Brexit Ministry?David_Evershed said:However, we could have had a plan to construct a plan about negotiations.
Oh, wait...0 -
ThreeQuidder said:
(Since I foresee the argument, saying what we wanted to achieve is Remaining misses the point).
But pointing out that whatever deal we finally get from the EU is guaranteed to be worse than the one we have now is exactly the point.
Although of course we will be free to do all sorts of other deals, with Zimbabwe and Venezuela for example...0 -
This is nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money.john_zims said:@Verulamius
'I commute on Thameslink. The trains are DOO (driver only operated) with no guards, and this includes 12 car trains. This is part of the same franchise as Southern (run by GTR).
Similarly Gatwick Express trains are DOO, also run by GTR.
As a commuter I struggle to see why similar trains (eg class 377) run by the same company for the same franchise over the same tracks must have guards on some but not on others.'
When did passengers or anyone else for that matter, ask the RMT to speak on their behalf about safety ?
The RMT are trying to hide the fact that DDO trains have a better safety record than those with guards. If the Rail companies could get that fact out there loud and proud, then any lingering support for the militants of the RMT would vanish.
The RMT are making life hell for people because of a few 'lost' jobs. The safety issue is just a lie.0 -
Whatever deal we finally got from staying in a ratcheting EU would also have been guaranteed to be worse than the one we have now. And whatever deal we could have got from the EU if we Left later would also be guaranteed to be worse than both the one we have now and the one we can get now.Scott_P said:ThreeQuidder said:(Since I foresee the argument, saying what we wanted to achieve is Remaining misses the point).
But pointing out that whatever deal we finally get from the EU is guaranteed to be worse than the one we have now is exactly the point.
This is why we won and you lost.0 -
This is worth a readThreeQuidder said:This is why we won and you lost.
@GdnPolitics: Here's what @faisalislam found when he visited #Brexit voters in Sunderland https://t.co/lpfL9Izuei0 -
0
-
Leave and Remain were not rival political parties, with the winner taking power and implementing a manifesto. There is only one organisation that can implement Brexit, the present government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, I'm not sure that leaving the EU is quite the near-universal catastrophe that opening Pandora's Box was...
Edited extra bit: not to mention, the Government could've and should've had in place the most basic aspects of a plan to leave, form a new arrangement with the EU, and develop the UK's position (both in terms of potentially joining EFTA/EEA and forming new bilateral trade agreements).0 -
And the importance of 'the deal' with the EU will continue to wane over time. In another 10-15 years it may only be around 30% of our foreign trade.ThreeQuidder said:
Whatever deal we finally got from staying in a ratcheting EU would also have been guaranteed to be worse than the one we have now. And whatever deal we could have got from the EU if we Left later would also be guaranteed to be worse than both the one we have now and the one we can get now.Scott_P said:ThreeQuidder said:(Since I foresee the argument, saying what we wanted to achieve is Remaining misses the point).
But pointing out that whatever deal we finally get from the EU is guaranteed to be worse than the one we have now is exactly the point.
This is why we won and you lost.
Certainly not worth all the financial sacrifices and sacrifices of crucial areas of national sovereignty that are already occurring and would increase further if we stayed in.
0 -
This is very good
@JohnyHelzapopin: Doing a thread of every summer Olympic sport and letting you all know if it's Tory or not and therefore if you're allowed to enjoy it or not0 -
Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf0 -
I've read it and I don't understand how they have come up with some of their figures. It's guesswork on top of estimates on top of uncertainty.John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf0 -
I wouldn't have thought they would pop round to a Leaver for dinner. PG tips and HP sauce aside it is pretty depressing fare.PlatoSaid said:
Remainers don't cook or eat at home was my conclusion. Or spend much time at home.JonnyJimmy said:Favourite brands of Remainers & Leavers:
Top 10 brands: Leave voters
HP Sauce
Bisto
ITV News
The Health Lottery
Birds Eye
Iceland
Sky News
Cathedral City
PG Tips
Richmond sausages
Top 10 brands: Remain voters
BBC.co.uk
BBC iPlayer
Instagram
London Underground
Spotify
Airbnb
LinkedIn
Virgin Trains
Twitter
EasyJet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36970535
What kind of a loser makes the BBC their favourite TWO brands?0 -
As they're forecasting out to 2030, I'm already rolling my eyes. However, it's what the media plus our resident Brexit refuseniks will call upon. Most of the figures are a repeat of their pre-EUref report.MaxPB said:
I've read it and I don't understand how they have come up with some of their figures. It's guesswork on top of estimates on top of uncertainty.John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
For the full English Brexit, they've plumped for a 4% GDP cost by 2030 and a short term PSBR of £20-40 billion. That's consistent with earlier figures.
That means the price of that hard Brexit is a permanent 0.285% reduction in trend growth and an additional 1.4 years of 'austerity'.0 -
Actually, if you sort it by percentage rather than gross votes (as it has a comparatively small electorate) it is the very safest Labour seat in the country - 81.3% of the vote in 2015. Knowsley has a larger majority but also 25% more voters, so Labour 'only' has a 78.1% share of the vote.ThreeQuidder said:
Yes, at number 5.Pulpstar said:Does this mean Rotheram will be creating a by-election ?
Must be in the top 5 safe Lab seats in the country.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/mps-maj.htm
With the Corbyn effect, it doesn't seem wholly impossible that in a by-election a Labour candidate could top 90%. Shame that those votes are replacing votes lost in seats like, say, Wirral West...0 -
But somehow the Treasury managed to predict economic outcomes thirty years into the future.Scott_P said:
Again a false argument.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, the two options in the referendum (Leave/Remain).
You could plan for Remain (very few unknowns)
You can't legitimately plan for the outcome of opening Pandora's box, other than what they actually did (calm the markets, set up a ministry)0 -
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
0 -
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/media-needs-stop-sense-humour-failure-donald-trump/
Seriously? The media, it seems, is having a total sense of humour failure when it comes to Donald Trump. This gives him an advantage in the presidential race.
Trump relishes joshing with the crowd, toying with the media’s piety, and sending himself up as the candidate who is willing to say anything. His fans understand this. The media — and most Brits, judging from the reactions to Trump in this country — do not. Or rather they do, but they are so determined to turn Trump into a post-modern anti-Christ that they choose to believe him when he is clearly joking.
Remainer Syndrome all over again.0 -
Yes, between 0.3 and 0.7% of GDP, so between £5.4 and £12.6 billion p.a. on today's figures.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf0 -
People like watching clowns, but do not always want them as President!Indigo said:http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/media-needs-stop-sense-humour-failure-donald-trump/
Seriously? The media, it seems, is having a total sense of humour failure when it comes to Donald Trump. This gives him an advantage in the presidential race.
Trump relishes joshing with the crowd, toying with the media’s piety, and sending himself up as the candidate who is willing to say anything. His fans understand this. The media — and most Brits, judging from the reactions to Trump in this country — do not. Or rather they do, but they are so determined to turn Trump into a post-modern anti-Christ that they choose to believe him when he is clearly joking.
Remainer Syndrome all over again.0 -
Not to mention any estimates for doing trade deals with anyone else once we are free to do so.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/694787/BREXIT-BOOM-27-countries-around-world-want-trade-deal-UK
etc0 -
And people couldn't possibly vote for BrExit considering the facts... Oh wait!foxinsoxuk said:
People like watching clowns, but do not always want them as President!Indigo said:http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/media-needs-stop-sense-humour-failure-donald-trump/
Seriously? The media, it seems, is having a total sense of humour failure when it comes to Donald Trump. This gives him an advantage in the presidential race.
Trump relishes joshing with the crowd, toying with the media’s piety, and sending himself up as the candidate who is willing to say anything. His fans understand this. The media — and most Brits, judging from the reactions to Trump in this country — do not. Or rather they do, but they are so determined to turn Trump into a post-modern anti-Christ that they choose to believe him when he is clearly joking.
Remainer Syndrome all over again.
Most of the voters are not disgusted Metropolitans, as the EU Ref demonstrated.0 -
Whether that is a good thing or bad thing depends very much on the terms of the deals- as yet to be decided.Indigo said:
Not to mention any estimates for doing trade deals with anyone else once we are free to do so.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/694787/BREXIT-BOOM-27-countries-around-world-want-trade-deal-UK
etc
The risk is that Brexiteers are the last one on the pull at the disco so settle for something that they will regret very quickly.0 -
Plenty of money to be had if you really believe that in the US they will choose a clown as next President.Indigo said:
And people couldn't possibly vote for BrExit considering the facts... Oh wait!foxinsoxuk said:
People like watching clowns, but do not always want them as President!Indigo said:http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/media-needs-stop-sense-humour-failure-donald-trump/
Seriously? The media, it seems, is having a total sense of humour failure when it comes to Donald Trump. This gives him an advantage in the presidential race.
Trump relishes joshing with the crowd, toying with the media’s piety, and sending himself up as the candidate who is willing to say anything. His fans understand this. The media — and most Brits, judging from the reactions to Trump in this country — do not. Or rather they do, but they are so determined to turn Trump into a post-modern anti-Christ that they choose to believe him when he is clearly joking.
Remainer Syndrome all over again.
Most of the voters are not disgusted Metropolitans, as the EU Ref demonstrated.0 -
The UK media are just awful re POTUS elections. It's all tutting and Trump bashing. I can't be bothered to engage with 90% of the coverage. It's also very Hillary biased which makes it even more annoying. The lazy assumptions, poorly informed commentary, prejudiced views/omission reporting renders it pointless.Indigo said:http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/media-needs-stop-sense-humour-failure-donald-trump/
Seriously? The media, it seems, is having a total sense of humour failure when it comes to Donald Trump. This gives him an advantage in the presidential race.
Trump relishes joshing with the crowd, toying with the media’s piety, and sending himself up as the candidate who is willing to say anything. His fans understand this. The media — and most Brits, judging from the reactions to Trump in this country — do not. Or rather they do, but they are so determined to turn Trump into a post-modern anti-Christ that they choose to believe him when he is clearly joking.
Remainer Syndrome all over again.
Just this morning - the talking head was on Sky totally missed out the Hillary convention bounce as a factor. I just rolled my eyes. Not a single mention of Orlando killer's dad - but oodles of OMG devoted to Trump. Not a reference to the Brit actually attempting to assassinate him either.0 -
Actually, having spent much time researching the more militant railway unions in South Wales before WWI, I am very happy for them to raise safety issues. There are two reasons for this: (1) They have a much better idea of what is going on and (2) they are in a much better position to judge what is and isn't safe than the travelling public by virtue of their members' training and experience. For example, it was the unions who managed to bring in caps on working hours for signalmen - because 90 hour working weeks, including on occasions 72 hour consecutive shifts, were causing major safety breaches including fatal accidents through tiredness and people falling asleep. That on its own must have saved many thousands of lives.john_zims said:
'I commute on Thameslink. The trains are DOO (driver only operated) with no guards, and this includes 12 car trains. This is part of the same franchise as Southern (run by GTR).
When did passengers or anyone else for that matter, ask the RMT to speak on their behalf about safety ?
The crucial difficulty comes when judging whether this is a meaningful safety issue. On trains that travel longish distances I would say it is. Being without a responsible and trained staff member on the Cambrian line would be reckless in the extreme, in an area with no mobile signal and long gaps between stations. If there were a problem, there might well be no way of resolving it. Also, as these lines are frequently open and there are no ticket barriers, they are needed simply to check the tickets and make sure that people don't get on and off in the wrong place (that may sound surprising, but it happens).
On London commuter lines, where (1) you have very short gaps between stations (2) you have automatic barriers and (3) commuters are packed like sardines in a can so staff cannot access the carriages, the need seems much less. I would say a little CCTV system above the carriage doors should be able to show the driver when everyone is in so s/he can close the doors.
Therefore, the RMT have picked a bad fight here. If they said that they were worried about the impact on staff of these changes, they might not have been loved but they would at least have been given credit for straight talking given how disliked Southern are. If they had found a genuine safety grievance - staff workload perhaps, putting too much onto the drivers, who are already I understand working rather long hours - they might even have public support. Phrasing it the way they have merely forfeits public sympathy and makes it less likely that they will be heeded in future when a genuine safety problem crops up. Hard to imagine Bob Crow, with all his faults, would have made such an error.
INcidentally, joke about Thameslink overheard at Farringdon: 'Q. What do you call a Thameslink commuter? A. A long distance walker.'0 -
No, 2030 is not thirty years in the future. I can see why you struggled to understand the report!Luckyguy1983 said:
But somehow the Treasury managed to predict economic outcomes thirty years into the future.Scott_P said:
Again a false argument.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, the two options in the referendum (Leave/Remain).
You could plan for Remain (very few unknowns)
You can't legitimately plan for the outcome of opening Pandora's box, other than what they actually did (calm the markets, set up a ministry)0 -
That's included. The IFS isn't some ghastly conspiracy against the Brexit cause. People need to understand that the the UK is a service economy. FTAs are primarily useful for reducing the costs of trade in goods.Indigo said:
Not to mention any estimates for doing trade deals with anyone else once we are free to do so.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/694787/BREXIT-BOOM-27-countries-around-world-want-trade-deal-UK
etc
You can argue about assumptions, or the length of the forecast (14 years is a long time extending across ~ 2 business cycles). My personal bugbear is the assumption that migration plummets (at a cost of -0.7% GDP). . But the fundamental point is that leaving the EU forgoes some future economic growth and causes short term economic pain.0 -
Yes, but the view taken is extremely negative. I would call it overly cautious.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf0 -
Thanks. Some very rough figures follow as a quick thought.John_M said:
Yes, between 0.3 and 0.7% of GDP, so between £5.4 and £12.6 billion p.a. on today's figures.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
Interesting that EU exports which are less than (I guess) 20% of gdp and yet we "lose" 4% of all that GDP (or potential growth).
Even though that "4%" represents >1/5 of all of those EU exports
(based on EU exports = 20% of GDP assumption above).
Yet the burden of EU regulations which impact almost 100% of all GDP is a hit of just 0.3%....
shurely schome mishtake?0 -
Cameron set up a unit within the Cabinet office, not a Brexit ministry. And he did so on the Monday after the result, by which time the pound had plummeted and Nicola Sturgeon had been all over the news announcing her shuttle diplomacy plans. Had there been any contingency planning done, he could have announced it on Friday and made the narrative 'the government is in charge' not 'the government is frantically racing to catch up with events'. Still, quite a fitting end to the Cameron premiership.Scott_P said:
You mean like set up a dedicated Brexit Ministry?David_Evershed said:However, we could have had a plan to construct a plan about negotiations.
Oh, wait...0 -
Mr. M, I've found it hard to consider the IFS neutral since an early Osborne Budget they described as not progressive on the basis it entailed cuts in welfare. The 'cuts' were projected lower jobseeker's allowance due to predictions of higher employment, as if more people being in work were a bad thing.
[I'm not dismissing the short term economic turbulence and uncertainty we're undergoing, and will do for some time, of course].0 -
They do, but again the view taken is extremely negative. The base assumption that free trade, tariff elimination and NTB elimination will not bring measurable gains in exports to countries currently outside of any agreements is risible.Indigo said:
Not to mention any estimates for doing trade deals with anyone else once we are free to do so.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/694787/BREXIT-BOOM-27-countries-around-world-want-trade-deal-UK
etc0 -
I well remember how in 2004 all the media, even the Times, were confidently predicting Kerry would hammer Bush. I also remember the Guardian letter-writing campaign to voters in swing states. When there was an actual swing to Bush in those states, the immediate cry was of fraud at the polls, a la Citizen Kane. Nobody had thought to wonder whether Kerry might not perhaps have been the best candidate particularly when facing an incumbent president managing what appeared to be a strong economy.PlatoSaid said:The UK media are just awful re POTUS elections. It's all tutting and Trump bashing. I can't be bothered to engage with 90% of the coverage. It's also very Hillary biased which makes it even more annoying. The lazy assumptions, poorly informed commentary, prejudiced views/omission reporting renders it pointless.
Just this morning - the talking head was on Sky totally missed out the Hillary convention bounce as a factor. I just rolled my eyes. Not a single mention of Orlando killer's dad - but oodles of OMG devoted to Trump. Not a reference to the Brit actually attempting to assassinate him either.
The crucial difference this time is that Trump is a much weaker candidate than Bush, who is actually an extremely shrewd and intelligent man with wide experience of politics who deliberately played the buffoon so his opponents would underestimate him (and did it brilliantly for many years). Trump really is an unstable egomaniac who is very much in love with his own brand (a bit like a louder version of Richard Branson) and who has held no political office.
Will that be enough for the Democrats? It should be but given how poor their own candidate is and the fact that they are in effect the incumbents it shouldn't be taken for granted. The great danger for them of the last few weeks is that a lot of Democrats in swing states who dislike the Clintons will decide that as Trump has imploded so spectacularly there will be no need to vote. That might still just deny them the White House.0 -
I loved the Guardian's letter writing campaign in 2004.ydoethur said:
I well remember how in 2004 all the media, even the Times, were confidently predicting Kerry would hammer Bush. I also remember the Guardian letter-writing campaign to voters in swing states. When there was an actual swing to Bush in those states, the immediate cry was of fraud at the polls, a la Citizen Kane. Nobody had thought to wonder whether Kerry might not perhaps have been the best candidate particularly when facing an incumbent president managing what appeared to be a strong economy.PlatoSaid said:The UK media are just awful re POTUS elections. It's all tutting and Trump bashing. I can't be bothered to engage with 90% of the coverage. It's also very Hillary biased which makes it even more annoying. The lazy assumptions, poorly informed commentary, prejudiced views/omission reporting renders it pointless.
Just this morning - the talking head was on Sky totally missed out the Hillary convention bounce as a factor. I just rolled my eyes. Not a single mention of Orlando killer's dad - but oodles of OMG devoted to Trump. Not a reference to the Brit actually attempting to assassinate him either.
The crucial difference this time is that Trump is a much weaker candidate than Bush, who is actually an extremely shrewd and intelligent man with wide experience of politics who deliberately played the buffoon so his opponents would underestimate him (and did it brilliantly for many years). Trump really is an unstable egomaniac who is very much in love with his own brand (a bit like a louder version of Richard Branson) and who has held no political office.
Will that be enough for the Democrats? It should be but given how poor their own candidate is and the fact that they are in effect the incumbents it shouldn't be taken for granted. The great danger for them of the last few weeks is that a lot of Democrats in swing states who dislike the Clintons will decide that as Trump has imploded so spectacularly there will be no need to vote. That might still just deny them the White House.0 -
This is probably where I part company from my fellow BrexiteersTCPoliticalBetting said:
Thanks. Some very rough figures follow as a quick thought.John_M said:
Yes, between 0.3 and 0.7% of GDP, so between £5.4 and £12.6 billion p.a. on today's figures.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
Interesting that EU exports which are less than (I guess) 20% of gdp and yet we "lose" 4% of all that GDP (or potential growth).
Even though that "4%" represents >1/5 of all of those EU exports
(based on EU exports = 20% of GDP assumption above).
Yet the burden of EU regulations which impact almost 100% of all GDP is a hit of just 0.3%....
shurely schome mishtake?. If you just close your eyes and swallow the bitter pill, its fine. 4% after 14 years is essentially noise. It's not really worth arguing about. The NIESR estimates are EEA ~ 1.8, FTA (e.g. CETA) ~2.1 or WTO ~3.2. Just say that it'll be a shortfall of 2-4% and leave it at that.
4% sounds like a large number (and it is! ~ £72 billion if applied to today's economy), but in the round, it's nothing. A small change in inflation has larger impacts. The issue is that the shortfall is going to be front-loaded.0 -
0
-
POTUS isn't really a joking matter, especially about Hillary, gun control and amendment 2.Indigo said:http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/media-needs-stop-sense-humour-failure-donald-trump/
Seriously? The media, it seems, is having a total sense of humour failure when it comes to Donald Trump. This gives him an advantage in the presidential race.
Trump relishes joshing with the crowd, toying with the media’s piety, and sending himself up as the candidate who is willing to say anything. His fans understand this. The media — and most Brits, judging from the reactions to Trump in this country — do not. Or rather they do, but they are so determined to turn Trump into a post-modern anti-Christ that they choose to believe him when he is clearly joking.
Remainer Syndrome all over again.0 -
That really was a peak Guardian moment. I bet they even had spelling errors in the letter.Sean_F said:
I loved the Guardian's letter writing campaign in 2004.ydoethur said:
I well remember how in 2004 all the media, even the Times, were confidently predicting Kerry would hammer Bush. I also remember the Guardian letter-writing campaign to voters in swing states. When there was an actual swing to Bush in those states, the immediate cry was of fraud at the polls, a la Citizen Kane. Nobody had thought to wonder whether Kerry might not perhaps have been the best candidate particularly when facing an incumbent president managing what appeared to be a strong economy.PlatoSaid said:The UK media are just awful re POTUS elections. It's all tutting and Trump bashing. I can't be bothered to engage with 90% of the coverage. It's also very Hillary biased which makes it even more annoying. The lazy assumptions, poorly informed commentary, prejudiced views/omission reporting renders it pointless.
Just this morning - the talking head was on Sky totally missed out the Hillary convention bounce as a factor. I just rolled my eyes. Not a single mention of Orlando killer's dad - but oodles of OMG devoted to Trump. Not a reference to the Brit actually attempting to assassinate him either.
The crucial difference this time is that Trump is a much weaker candidate than Bush, who is actually an extremely shrewd and intelligent man with wide experience of politics who deliberately played the buffoon so his opponents would underestimate him (and did it brilliantly for many years). Trump really is an unstable egomaniac who is very much in love with his own brand (a bit like a louder version of Richard Branson) and who has held no political office.
Will that be enough for the Democrats? It should be but given how poor their own candidate is and the fact that they are in effect the incumbents it shouldn't be taken for granted. The great danger for them of the last few weeks is that a lot of Democrats in swing states who dislike the Clintons will decide that as Trump has imploded so spectacularly there will be no need to vote. That might still just deny them the White House.0 -
@oxfordsimon
'This is nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money.
The RMT are trying to hide the fact that DDO trains have a better safety record than those with guards. If the Rail companies could get that fact out there loud and proud, then any lingering support for the militants of the RMT would vanish.
The RMT are making life hell for people because of a few 'lost' jobs. The safety issue is just a lie.'
This is identical to the junior doctors strike when fake concern for patient & now passenger safety is the excuse for snouts in troughs.
0 -
Turning that on its head. If a pro-European group thinks the worst thing that can happen is that the UK is 28% richer in 2030 (rather than 32%), you might reasonably expect to be sanguine that Brexit will do better than those forecasts in practice.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. M, I've found it hard to consider the IFS neutral since an early Osborne Budget they described as not progressive on the basis it entailed cuts in welfare. The 'cuts' were projected lower jobseeker's allowance due to predictions of higher employment, as if more people being in work were a bad thing.
[I'm not dismissing the short term economic turbulence and uncertainty we're undergoing, and will do for some time, of course].0 -
Rowing, for those interested, is delayed until at least 4pm due to wind.0
-
Pres Kaine/Pence both available at 1000.0 on Betfair...logical_song said:
POTUS isn't really a joking matter, especially about Hillary, gun control and amendment 2.Indigo said:http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/media-needs-stop-sense-humour-failure-donald-trump/
Seriously? The media, it seems, is having a total sense of humour failure when it comes to Donald Trump. This gives him an advantage in the presidential race.
Trump relishes joshing with the crowd, toying with the media’s piety, and sending himself up as the candidate who is willing to say anything. His fans understand this. The media — and most Brits, judging from the reactions to Trump in this country — do not. Or rather they do, but they are so determined to turn Trump into a post-modern anti-Christ that they choose to believe him when he is clearly joking.
Remainer Syndrome all over again.0 -
Loved this
BBC Archive
#OTD 1970: A new telephone directory meant keeping up with the Joneses - and the Smiths - became rather more complex
https://t.co/k9G7FijaoJ0 -
On topic, maybe the members are actually doing something meaningful on the ground but it's being cancelled out by the voters increasingly thinking Corbyn is shit.0
-
A bigger bugbear surely is that GDP is almost meaningless if terms of how well off the average member of the public feels, especially when its 2030 GDP per 2015 household!John_M said:
That's included. The IFS isn't some ghastly conspiracy against the Brexit cause. People need to understand that the the UK is a service economy. FTAs are primarily useful for reducing the costs of trade in goods.Indigo said:
Not to mention any estimates for doing trade deals with anyone else once we are free to do so.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/694787/BREXIT-BOOM-27-countries-around-world-want-trade-deal-UK
etc
You can argue about assumptions, or the length of the forecast (14 years is a long time extending across ~ 2 business cycles). My personal bugbear is the assumption that migration plummets (at a cost of -0.7% GDP). . But the fundamental point is that leaving the EU forgoes some future economic growth and causes short term economic pain.0 -
You can never 'know' the counterfactual (Same applies if we would have remained) - however one can compare the GDP (USD) per capita charts in 2030 compared to now for say ourselves and other similiar western nations (France the best one probably)John_M said:
Turning that on its head. If a pro-European group thinks the worst thing that can happen is that the UK is 28% richer in 2030 (rather than 32%), you might reasonably expect to be sanguine that Brexit will do better than those forecasts in practice.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. M, I've found it hard to consider the IFS neutral since an early Osborne Budget they described as not progressive on the basis it entailed cuts in welfare. The 'cuts' were projected lower jobseeker's allowance due to predictions of higher employment, as if more people being in work were a bad thing.
[I'm not dismissing the short term economic turbulence and uncertainty we're undergoing, and will do for some time, of course].0 -
The prices of possible Republican replacements for Trump are falling at Betfair:
Ryan 80-90
Kasich 380-400
Pence: 550-650
I try to avoid thinking in buzzphrases such as the currently popular "dogwhistle". I have to admit, though, that the term does seem apt to describe Donald Trump's brilliantly conceived and executed "second amendment" remark.
Republicans who want him out and who want to keep control of both houses of Congress need to act against Trump fast. At this very moment, Henry Kissinger...
That's not the greatest danger. The greatest danger is the planet-sized October Surprise against Clinton that Roger Stone (for Donald Trump) is planning with the assistance of Julian Assange (Wikileaks).ydoethur said:The crucial difference this time is that Trump is a much weaker candidate than Bush, who is actually an extremely shrewd and intelligent man with wide experience of politics who deliberately played the buffoon so his opponents would underestimate him (and did it brilliantly for many years). Trump really is an unstable egomaniac who is very much in love with his own brand (a bit like a louder version of Richard Branson) and who has held no political office.
Will that be enough for the Democrats? It should be but given how poor their own candidate is and the fact that they are in effect the incumbents it shouldn't be taken for granted. The great danger for them of the last few weeks is that a lot of Democrats in swing states who dislike the Clintons will decide that as Trump has imploded so spectacularly there will be no need to vote. That might still just deny them the White House.
Bernie Sanders is at 100-110.0 -
The members are talking to themselves. They don't want to talk to voters, or at least, not anyone who's ever voted Tory. I've a mixed Twitter timeline, and the Momentum folk are both hilarious and deeply worrying. It's the mixture of paranoia, hatred and moral purity that's alarming.edmundintokyo said:On topic, maybe the members are actually doing something meaningful on the ground but it's being cancelled out by the voters increasingly thinking Corbyn is shit.
0 -
Pence is the best value of those I think (Have £5 on at 1000.0), Ryan has a loophole to become POTUS (Not strictly a Trump sub) though I think it is skinnier than 85-1.Dromedary said:The prices of possible Republican replacements for Trump are falling at Betfair:
Ryan 80-90
Kasich 380-400
Pence: 550-650
I do not understand why, but Bernie Sanders is at 100-120.
Thanks to the cooperation between Julian Assange (Wikileaks) and Roger Stone (for Donald Trump), an October Surprise against Clinton is expected. I would say a Clinton withdrawal seems very unlikely. But...?
I try to avoid thinking in buzzphrases such as the currently popular "dogwhistle". I have to admit, though, that the term does seem apt to describe Donald Trump's brilliantly conceived and executed "second amendment" remark.
Republicans who want him out and who want to keep control of both houses of Congress need to act against Trump fast. At this very moment, Henry Kissinger...
Kasich should be 1000+ (And the rest).0 -
Absolutely. When I say we won't know whether it was a good decision for fifteen or twenty years, it's not an attempt to deflect from the inevitable short term bad news. It really will take that long for Brexit to shake out. If our trend growth drops to Italian levels, sure, bad move.Pulpstar said:
You can never 'know' the counterfactual (Same applies if we would have remained) - however one can compare the GDP (USD) per capita charts in 2030 compared to now for say ourselves and other similiar western nations (France the best one probably)John_M said:
Turning that on its head. If a pro-European group thinks the worst thing that can happen is that the UK is 28% richer in 2030 (rather than 32%), you might reasonably expect to be sanguine that Brexit will do better than those forecasts in practice.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. M, I've found it hard to consider the IFS neutral since an early Osborne Budget they described as not progressive on the basis it entailed cuts in welfare. The 'cuts' were projected lower jobseeker's allowance due to predictions of higher employment, as if more people being in work were a bad thing.
[I'm not dismissing the short term economic turbulence and uncertainty we're undergoing, and will do for some time, of course].0 -
If I were a long term betting type then I would offer 5/1 that we'll out grow France on a PPP per capita basis in 2030. However, I'm not looking to tie up my money for that long!Pulpstar said:
You can never 'know' the counterfactual (Same applies if we would have remained) - however one can compare the GDP (USD) per capita charts in 2030 compared to now for say ourselves and other similiar western nations (France the best one probably)John_M said:
Turning that on its head. If a pro-European group thinks the worst thing that can happen is that the UK is 28% richer in 2030 (rather than 32%), you might reasonably expect to be sanguine that Brexit will do better than those forecasts in practice.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. M, I've found it hard to consider the IFS neutral since an early Osborne Budget they described as not progressive on the basis it entailed cuts in welfare. The 'cuts' were projected lower jobseeker's allowance due to predictions of higher employment, as if more people being in work were a bad thing.
[I'm not dismissing the short term economic turbulence and uncertainty we're undergoing, and will do for some time, of course].0 -
I get that theory but we know the voters don't rate Corbyn, and Labour's performance in actual elections is bad but not shockingly bad, so it seems like the simplest explanation is that the two things we'd expect to happen, one of which should be a plus and the other a minus, are both happening.John_M said:
The members are talking to themselves. They don't want to talk to voters, or at least, not anyone who's ever voted Tory. I've a mixed Twitter timeline, and the Momentum folk are both hilarious and deeply worrying. It's the mixture of paranoia, hatred and moral purity that's alarming.edmundintokyo said:On topic, maybe the members are actually doing something meaningful on the ground but it's being cancelled out by the voters increasingly thinking Corbyn is shit.
0 -
You might find that enough US voters don't agree with you. Like I said its Remain Campaign all over again, all sorts of people who are not the target group getting uptight about a campaign that is not aimed at them, and who would under no circumstances vote for the candidate anyway. Liberal Metropolitan won't vote from Trump shocker!logical_song said:
POTUS isn't really a joking matter, especially about Hillary, gun control and amendment 2.Indigo said:http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/media-needs-stop-sense-humour-failure-donald-trump/
Seriously? The media, it seems, is having a total sense of humour failure when it comes to Donald Trump. This gives him an advantage in the presidential race.
Trump relishes joshing with the crowd, toying with the media’s piety, and sending himself up as the candidate who is willing to say anything. His fans understand this. The media — and most Brits, judging from the reactions to Trump in this country — do not. Or rather they do, but they are so determined to turn Trump into a post-modern anti-Christ that they choose to believe him when he is clearly joking.
Remainer Syndrome all over again.0 -
If 4% of GDP is nothing, then £350m / week is less than nothing.John_M said:
This is probably where I part company from my fellow BrexiteersTCPoliticalBetting said:
Thanks. Some very rough figures follow as a quick thought.John_M said:
Yes, between 0.3 and 0.7% of GDP, so between £5.4 and £12.6 billion p.a. on today's figures.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
Interesting that EU exports which are less than (I guess) 20% of gdp and yet we "lose" 4% of all that GDP (or potential growth).
Even though that "4%" represents >1/5 of all of those EU exports
(based on EU exports = 20% of GDP assumption above).
Yet the burden of EU regulations which impact almost 100% of all GDP is a hit of just 0.3%....
shurely schome mishtake?. If you just close your eyes and swallow the bitter pill, its fine. 4% after 14 years is essentially noise. It's not really worth arguing about. The NIESR estimates are EEA ~ 1.8, FTA (e.g. CETA) ~2.1 or WTO ~3.2. Just say that it'll be a shortfall of 2-4% and leave it at that.
4% sounds like a large number (and it is! ~ £72 billion if applied to today's economy), but in the round, it's nothing. A small change in inflation has larger impacts. The issue is that the shortfall is going to be front-loaded.0 -
John McTernan thinks it's time to bust the RMT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/the-tories-should-crush-the-rail-unions-once-and-for-all--voters/0 -
Stone admits he is in touch with Assange. Politics is dirty - hold the front page!Dromedary said:The greatest danger (for Clinton) is the planet-sized October Surprise against Clinton that Roger Stone (for Donald Trump) is planning with the assistance of Julian Assange (Wikileaks)
0 -
You can refer to posts I made before and after EUref that anyone basing their decision on a figure that (even @ gross) is less than 1% of GDP, or 2.2% of public spending, is an idiot.FeersumEnjineeya said:
If 4% of GDP is nothing, then £350m / week is less than nothing.John_M said:
This is probably where I part company from my fellow BrexiteersTCPoliticalBetting said:
Thanks. Some very rough figures follow as a quick thought.John_M said:
Yes, between 0.3 and 0.7% of GDP, so between £5.4 and £12.6 billion p.a. on today's figures.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
Interesting that EU exports which are less than (I guess) 20% of gdp and yet we "lose" 4% of all that GDP (or potential growth).
Even though that "4%" represents >1/5 of all of those EU exports
(based on EU exports = 20% of GDP assumption above).
Yet the burden of EU regulations which impact almost 100% of all GDP is a hit of just 0.3%....
shurely schome mishtake?. If you just close your eyes and swallow the bitter pill, its fine. 4% after 14 years is essentially noise. It's not really worth arguing about. The NIESR estimates are EEA ~ 1.8, FTA (e.g. CETA) ~2.1 or WTO ~3.2. Just say that it'll be a shortfall of 2-4% and leave it at that.
4% sounds like a large number (and it is! ~ £72 billion if applied to today's economy), but in the round, it's nothing. A small change in inflation has larger impacts. The issue is that the shortfall is going to be front-loaded.0 -
I'm so glad I'm not a pedant who can't see the wood for the trees.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, 2030 is not thirty years in the future. I can see why you struggled to understand the report!Luckyguy1983 said:
But somehow the Treasury managed to predict economic outcomes thirty years into the future.Scott_P said:
Again a false argument.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, the two options in the referendum (Leave/Remain).
You could plan for Remain (very few unknowns)
You can't legitimately plan for the outcome of opening Pandora's box, other than what they actually did (calm the markets, set up a ministry)0 -
Indeed.SeanT said:
Brexit, I have decided, is like having kids. It's that big. It changes everything. It is neither purely good nor wholly bad, indeed framing it in that simple way is fatuous. As the years go by Brexit will alter things irrevocably (just as having kids does) - and often it will transform things in ways we cannot even contemplate.Scott_P said:Alas, the cod-psychology of self-help and motivational mumbo-jumbo has seeped into the Brexit debate. Leave campaigners are telling anyone who raises concerns about Brexit to ‘be positive’, ‘just get on with it’ and, my personal favourite, ‘move on’. It’s the sort of language adopted by managers who want to railroad a project through and don’t want to hear the staff tell them it might go wrong.
But just get on with what? Move on to what? I’m as happy as the next person to move on if it’s clear what we are moving on to but, at the moment, we have no idea. We might have voted against the EU but what did we vote for? The government should have had a plan, say the Brexit campaigners. (There it is again; turn your own failings into someone else’s problem.) But it is difficult to see how anyone could have planned for this, especially when we don’t know what ‘this’ is. “Brexit means Brexit,” said Theresa May, which sounds decisive but is anything but because Brexit can mean all sorts of things.
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com
20 years down the line we will look back and probably be glad that we had kids, but it will mean opportunities lost, and money spent.
And right now some people are still in the early stages of Post Natal Depression, as the three month old baby screams in the bedroom and the nappies pile up in the bathroom
To be honest what pisses me off about this whole dishonest debate is ignoring that inevitability that we would leave the EU within the next decade or so anyway as the Eurozone federalises and we get forced to put up or shut up on joining the Euro. If we got forced out at the wrong end of a Euro ultimatum in 2020-25 I think our GDP might be off by more than 4% by 2030!0 -
My biggest problem with the IFS is that in his attempt to out-do Labour - he elevated the IFS to near Delphic status.Indigo said:
A bigger bugbear surely is that GDP is almost meaningless if terms of how well off the average member of the public feels, especially when its 2030 GDP per 2015 household!John_M said:
That's included. The IFS isn't some ghastly conspiracy against the Brexit cause. People need to understand that the the UK is a service economy. FTAs are primarily useful for reducing the costs of trade in goods.Indigo said:
Not to mention any estimates for doing trade deals with anyone else once we are free to do so.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Anyone found in the IFS assumptions how much they have estimated in their main forecast, for the gains from being outside EU regulation etc? Anything?John_M said:Here's the IFS Single Market report for your delectation.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R119 - The EU Single market - Final.pdf
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/694787/BREXIT-BOOM-27-countries-around-world-want-trade-deal-UK
etc
You can argue about assumptions, or the length of the forecast (14 years is a long time extending across ~ 2 business cycles). My personal bugbear is the assumption that migration plummets (at a cost of -0.7% GDP). . But the fundamental point is that leaving the EU forgoes some future economic growth and causes short term economic pain.
I thought they were a trifle Leftish for a long while before he chose to do so, and think it was all tactics and no strategy by him - yet again.
Now everyone else is crowded out, and they're a sacred cow. Big mistake.0 -
It's that they don't seem to care about winning the next election that I don't understand. They'd rather go down to a Tory landslide but be 'right' in their own minds, than appeal to anyone who recently voted Conservative.John_M said:
The members are talking to themselves. They don't want to talk to voters, or at least, not anyone who's ever voted Tory. I've a mixed Twitter timeline, and the Momentum folk are both hilarious and deeply worrying. It's the mixture of paranoia, hatred and moral purity that's alarming.edmundintokyo said:On topic, maybe the members are actually doing something meaningful on the ground but it's being cancelled out by the voters increasingly thinking Corbyn is shit.
100 majority for May in 2020, that's 350 seats in the 600 seat Parliament - odds on, surely?0 -
I'm happy that I'm able to distinguish between pedantry and basic numeracy.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm so glad I'm not a pedant who can't see the wood for the trees.FeersumEnjineeya said:
No, 2030 is not thirty years in the future. I can see why you struggled to understand the report!Luckyguy1983 said:
But somehow the Treasury managed to predict economic outcomes thirty years into the future.Scott_P said:
Again a false argument.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, the two options in the referendum (Leave/Remain).
You could plan for Remain (very few unknowns)
You can't legitimately plan for the outcome of opening Pandora's box, other than what they actually did (calm the markets, set up a ministry)0 -
Trump seems to have no sense of responsibility for his words or actions. At times, he positively incites violence or at the very least, gives what those who would look for such things a nod and wink that it's all right with him. It's grossly irresponsible behaviour and I'm quite sure that it's more than just liberal New Yorkers and San Franciscans who find it beyond the pale in a potential president.Indigo said:
You might find that enough US voters don't agree with you. Like I said its Remain Campaign all over again, all sorts of people who are not the target group getting uptight about a campaign that is not aimed at them, and who would under no circumstances vote for the candidate anyway. Liberal Metropolitan won't vote from Trump shocker!logical_song said:
POTUS isn't really a joking matter, especially about Hillary, gun control and amendment 2.Indigo said:http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/media-needs-stop-sense-humour-failure-donald-trump/
Seriously? The media, it seems, is having a total sense of humour failure when it comes to Donald Trump. This gives him an advantage in the presidential race.
Trump relishes joshing with the crowd, toying with the media’s piety, and sending himself up as the candidate who is willing to say anything. His fans understand this. The media — and most Brits, judging from the reactions to Trump in this country — do not. Or rather they do, but they are so determined to turn Trump into a post-modern anti-Christ that they choose to believe him when he is clearly joking.
Remainer Syndrome all over again.0
