politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile ahead of the CON conference Ken Clarke goes on th
Comments
-
Ah I see you pre-posted.FrancisUrquhart said:
Your own link...TOPPING said:
niesr.ac.uk/blog/leaving-eu-would-almost-certainly-damage-our-economic-prospects#.V-0PMSgrI2wMaxPB said:
No it's not, it is based on the Treasury's analysis, the report is still available to download. The summary specifically mentions the number.TOPPING said:
Not to fight old battles, but those were NIESR's numbers. Experts, I grant you, but they are a not too shabby outfit nevertheless.Essexit said:
No, that was Osborne with the £4,300 crap.Anorak said:
"I've made up some numbers which support my point of view. Therefore I am right". Hmm.MaxPB said:Take this as a scenario:
2030 Brexit - The economy has slo than when we left.
2030 Bremain - The economy kept growing at an average of 2.3% per year. Immigration settled at a net of 350k for about 10 years and fell to 250k after that. Migrants are still a mix of highly skilled and unskilled workers. The migration pressure has held wages down among the bottom 20% which has enabled companies to post higher profits and pay bigger wages to the management classes who benefit via bonuses, meaning the top 10% benefit the most. Overall GDP is 32.2% larger than the referendum date, 5.2% higher than the Brexit scenario.
Which of these is more or less successful? In one absolute GDP is higher and in the other low wage workers aris.
"The analysis in the long-term document sets out a range for each alternative, with a central estimate that gross domestic product (GDP) would be £4,300 lower in 2015 terms for each household after 15 years and every year thereafter."
In bold no less!
Edit: done with the CEP and IFS (experts, all) - but the numbers were crunched by NIESR.
"Households would be £4,300 a year worse off by 2030."
Uncertain - the effect might be bigger or smaller and will fall unevenly across households.
Yes, sorry - it did say that, it also said "But households would in all likelihood be, on average, significantly worse off if we left the EU than if we stayed" immediately afterwards.
I don't dispute the figures, or the debate surrounding them, just the provenance. My point being they were produced and then the Treasury's claims were logic-checked by NIESR, in that their central forecast agreed with that number.0 -
It's a little bit amazing how little dirt they're coming out with bearing in mind that they have huge quantities of email from both the Clintons and the DNC.PlatoSaid said:Via Wikileaks
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
http://universepolitics.com/2016/09/24/breaking-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-reveals-islamic-oct-surprise-that-will-destroy-hill/0 -
ie NIESR's figures.MaxPB said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdfTOPPING said:niesr.ac.uk/blog/leaving-eu-would-almost-certainly-damage-our-economic-prospects#.V-0PMSgrI2w
Edit: done with the CEP and IFS (experts, all) - but the numbers were crunched by NIESR.
Using the NIESR forecasting model, but the analysis and impact on household GDP is the Treasury's own.0 -
Interesting that KC chose to speak to The New Statesman. Has he found a new home? Mistakes on the EU may have been made but the UK successfully avoided KC's mistaken proposal that we should join the Euro.0
-
Yes Wikileaks are always decidedly underwhelmingedmundintokyo said:
It's a little bit amazing how little dirt they're coming out with bearing in mind that they have huge quantities of email from both the Clintons and the DNC.PlatoSaid said:Via Wikileaks
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
http://universepolitics.com/2016/09/24/breaking-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-reveals-islamic-oct-surprise-that-will-destroy-hill/0 -
JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.0 -
You don't seem to understand that taking control means giving us the ability to determine our own immigration policy.foxinsoxuk said:
Free movement for Bankers but not Doctors or Nurses?Casino_Royale said:
Why is it laughable?williamglenn said:
Laughable. How would you distinguish who qualifies for a 'free migration stamp' at the border?Casino_Royale said:
I suspect a quick check of EU passports - as we do now at the UK border, as we are outside Schengen - with a wave through for those who qualify for a free migration stamp in the passport, or on a certificate, together with visa free visits for tourists.TOPPING said:
How would you police it, then? Surely immigration controls and work permits? Or can we expect a lot of high-income workers in services from Romania and Bulgaria to turn up at T3 post-Brexit?
Immigration would question those who did not.
If you are a EU worker employed in banking, and entitled to free movement into the UK, you will have some endorsement, stamp or letter saying so.
Nailed on Tory gain, perhaps extend Bankers to include qualified baby roasters.
Perhaps we'll need Docs and Nurses, perhaps we'll be more easily able to employ Docs and Nurses from English speaking countries around the world. Seems more useful to me than favouring not only European Docs and Nurses but also, because of a farcical EU free movement system, tradesmen who suppress wages for natives and discourage businesses from training native youths.0 -
We will *know* by New Hampshire.Jobabob said:JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.0 -
The conundrum is going to be if the left win the elections, but by a margin smaller than the representation from British Labour. Does their candidate then get Juncker's job?YellowSubmarine said:If the EU Treaties are still in force in the UK in June 2019 we're entitled to representation in the new European Parliament. The UK government could cancel the elections but would be open to legal challenge. Thus delay A50 notification past June 2017 involves us electing MEP's for a few months. It doesn't bother me. It would be funny but it'll p*ss off lots of other people.
0 -
You have no discernible interest in betting nor in those of us that actually bet. That much is clear from your posts.PlatoSaid said:
I'm sharing a potential issue for those betting on POTUS. We've been waiting for the next dump - this is confirmation.matt said:
The first major sales of US equipment were state of the art AWACS aircraft: you may recall that. I presume that was the Clintons' fault as well.PlatoSaid said:Via Wikileaks
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
http://universepolitics.com/2016/09/24/breaking-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-reveals-islamic-oct-surprise-that-will-destroy-hill/
You are entirely free to disregard it.0 -
It's clear which side of politics is nasty now. Plenty of 'progressives' clearly view their less-educated fellow citizens as rebellious factors of production to be ignored and scorned in turn.YellowSubmarine said:Wages are an economic cost not a benefit. By voluntarily restricting a cheaper and needed unit of production we will be harming not helping the UK economy in GDP terms. The loss of GDP growth will be focused on the poorest voters because it always is. I no longer care about that. The losers will have disproportionately voted Leave anyway. What amuses me is the intellectual gymnastics free market Brexiters will use to justify an extraordinarily left wing policy. Artificially inflating economic costs for redistributive purposes.
So much for Marx and Methodism!
0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
With 40 days to go, Hillary's lead in the RCP average (3.0%) is much the same as Obama's was in 2008 (3.3%).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/election_2016_vs_election_2008_eight_years_ago_today-210.html
Yes, I have her as slightly behind Obama, so those numbers feel about right to me. I think she has to push on. 3.3pts is still not much of a cushion.0 -
Explain? Hillary wins NH. But that doesn't mean she wins the election.Pulpstar said:
We will *know* by New Hampshire.Jobabob said:JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.0 -
FOP is the key for Trump and Clinton.Jobabob said:It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.
Trump requires a clean sweep of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Clinton just one and North Carolina would be a bonus for Clinton :
http://www.270towin.com/maps/ArG9l0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.0
-
Thanks Jack – not least because I have been wondering what FOP stands for!! *JackW said:
FOP is the key for Trump and Clinton.Jobabob said:It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.
Trump requires a clean sweep of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Clinton just one and North Carolina would be a bonus for Clinton :
http://www.270towin.com/maps/ArG9l
If Trump wins CO he can live without PA though? http://www.270towin.com/maps/zwP9w0 -
The same trend is true in the UK, the US and Japan. I have little doubt that if the numbers were ran for other countries, they would tell a similar story.Indigo said:
This report seems to cover 1967-2015.williamglenn said:
Is there a chart for post-2007?Indigo said:FPT:
Interesting article attempting to explain Trump and BrExit in terms of the Ultimatum Game, but in reality his second diagram says all that needs to be said.
Perhaps the greatest amount of blame for Brexit and Trump should fall on the Federal Reserve.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/u-s-household-incomes-a-49-year-perspective
The bottom line is
Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
The question is: would rolling back globalisation make these people richer?0 -
Who knows, but I guess enough people thought it was worth a go wrt to Brexit.rcs1000 said:
The same trend is true in the UK, the US and Japan. I have little doubt that if the numbers were ran for other countries, they would tell a similar story.Indigo said:
This report seems to cover 1967-2015.williamglenn said:
Is there a chart for post-2007?Indigo said:FPT:
Interesting article attempting to explain Trump and BrExit in terms of the Ultimatum Game, but in reality his second diagram says all that needs to be said.
Perhaps the greatest amount of blame for Brexit and Trump should fall on the Federal Reserve.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/u-s-household-incomes-a-49-year-perspective
The bottom line is
Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
The question is: would rolling back globalisation make these people richer?0 -
Crucially she is leading by 0.1% in Florida again.Jobabob said:
Explain? Hillary wins NH. But that doesn't mean she wins the election.Pulpstar said:
We will *know* by New Hampshire.Jobabob said:JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.0 -
Is it, though, Morris? IS IT?Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
[Also, how can you have a 30-place penalty with a good deal less than that lined up on the grid?]0 -
Just on income growth etc, I think it's always likely the upper rates will increase relative to the lower quarters simply because if growth were all the same then the real terms difference would diminish (ie if everyone had a 10% pay increase every year for a century, by the end of the century there'd be far less real difference between the richest and poorest).
However, recent rates have been substantially far apart. This is worsened by high profile people acting in ways which do not endear them to the public (Fred Goodwin, Philip Green etc) and the prolonged ultra-low interest rates which has seen assets become increasingly difficult to afford for people not already on the housing ladder.
[Bit rambly, and a shade off-colour, so hopefully that makes sense].
Edited extra bit: I think rain is forecast for Malaysia so check that if you're contemplating a safety car bet.0 -
Mr. Anorak, unfortunately, those in charge making F1's rules have a limited grasp of numbers.0
-
It is interesting that if we take those figures at face value, and I have no reason no to, we would think that the "left" (who are usually the ones most concerned about the "workers") would benefit from the justified anger of those being left behind, and yet it seems that that anger has been channelled by the likes of Brexit, Trump, and others on the right.MaxPB said:
Who knows, but I guess enough people thought it was worth a go wrt to Brexit.rcs1000 said:The same trend is true in the UK, the US and Japan. I have little doubt that if the numbers were ran for other countries, they would tell a similar story.
Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
The question is: would rolling back globalisation make these people richer?
Why do modern social democratic parties seem to put globalisation ahead of the living standards of their own supporters? Is it as simple as the dogma of internationalism is believed to be more important than material well being?
0 -
0
-
eerily simmilar numbers in all 5 swing states. Clinon around 50% and Donald around 45%.nunu said:
Crucially she is leading by 0.1% in Florida again.Jobabob said:
Explain? Hillary wins NH. But that doesn't mean she wins the election.Pulpstar said:
We will *know* by New Hampshire.Jobabob said:JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.0 -
Will the state voting ending order be this again ?
0000 GA, IN, KY, SC, VT, VA
0030 NC, OH, WV
0100 AL, CT, DE, DC, FL, IL, ME, MD, MA, MS, MO, NH, NJ, OK, PA, RI, TN
0130 AR
0200 AZ, CO, KS, LA, MI, MN, NE, NM, NY, ND, SD, TX, WI, WY
0300 IA, MT, NV, UT
0400 CA, HI, ID, OR, WA
0600 AK0 -
Correction: It hasn't worked as well, relatively speaking for those outside the top 20% in the developed world. It might well be that it has still worked out well for them, relative to the alternative of no globalisation. In fact, I think that is very likely.rcs1000 said:Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
0 -
Yes, I think the idea of internationalism has infected a lot of leftist thinking. I still don't understand their obsession with joining the EU. Just now we have someone who claims to be a Lib Dem espouse something I wouldn't be surprised to hear in my local conservative association, or read in a speech made by Mrs Thatcher at the height of her power. Yet here were are when leftists are calling wages an economic cost and hoping for the impoverishment of the poorest in our country, either by stagnant wages within the EU or by stagnant overall growth.glw said:
It is interesting that if we take those figures at face value, and I have no reason no to, we would think that the "left" (who are usually the ones most concerned about the "workers") would benefit from the justified anger of those being left behind, and yet it seems that that anger has been channelled by the likes of Brexit, Trump, and others on the right.MaxPB said:
Who knows, but I guess enough people thought it was worth a go wrt to Brexit.rcs1000 said:The same trend is true in the UK, the US and Japan. I have little doubt that if the numbers were ran for other countries, they would tell a similar story.
Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
The question is: would rolling back globalisation make these people richer?
Why do modern social democratic parties seem to put globalisation ahead of the living standards of their own supporters? Is it as simple as the dogma of internationalism is believed to be more important than material well being?0 -
Rolling back consumer price inflation targeting as the basis of monetary policy might though.rcs1000 said:
The same trend is true in the UK, the US and Japan. I have little doubt that if the numbers were ran for other countries, they would tell a similar story.Indigo said:
This report seems to cover 1967-2015.williamglenn said:
Is there a chart for post-2007?Indigo said:FPT:
Interesting article attempting to explain Trump and BrExit in terms of the Ultimatum Game, but in reality his second diagram says all that needs to be said.
Perhaps the greatest amount of blame for Brexit and Trump should fall on the Federal Reserve.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/u-s-household-incomes-a-49-year-perspective
The bottom line is
Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
The question is: would rolling back globalisation make these people richer?0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
Correction: It hasn't worked as well, relatively speaking for those outside the top 20% in the developed world. It might well be that it has still worked out well for them, relative to the alternative of no globalisation. In fact, I think that is very likely.rcs1000 said:Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
Shows how it has changed since the turn of the century. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar pattern here, maybe worse since 2004 for the lowest 20% here.
0 -
Mr. glw, socialists love the poor. It's why they always create more of them
0 -
Wages are obviously both a cost (to those paying them) and a benefit (to those receiving them).YellowSubmarine said:Wages are an economic cost not a benefit. By voluntarily restricting a cheaper and needed unit of production we will be harming not helping the UK economy in GDP terms. The loss of GDP growth will be focused on the poorest voters because it always is. I no longer care about that. The losers will have disproportionately voted Leave anyway. What amuses me is the intellectual gymnastics free market Brexiters will use to justify an extraordinarily left wing policy. Artificially inflating economic costs for redistributive purposes.
Thinking Conservatives realise that for capitalism to enjoy broad popular support, the wage earners have to receive some of the benefits.0 -
Official HMRC Oct: 1.1635 €/£ / 1.2967 $
Everyone enjoy limbo dancing ?0 -
How on earth do you work that out? If someone is earning 10K and someone is earning £20K and they both increase by 10% the difference between them will increase rapidly: By the time that the £10K is £20K the £20K will be £40K meaning the differential has increased from £10K to £20K.Morris_Dancer said:Just on income growth etc, I think it's always likely the upper rates will increase relative to the lower quarters simply because if growth were all the same then the real terms difference would diminish (ie if everyone had a 10% pay increase every year for a century, by the end of the century there'd be far less real difference between the richest and poorest).
For differentials to decrease the lower paid need bigger increases, the exact opposite of what has happened.
0 -
Indeed. However Trump isn't competing in the state in any realistic fashion in terms of cash, offices or time. It's FOP or bust for Donald.Jobabob said:If Trump wins CO he can live without PA though? http://www.270towin.com/maps/zwP9w
0 -
Ot it's release is timed to dominate the final week before voting....edmundintokyo said:
It's a little bit amazing how little dirt they're coming out with bearing in mind that they have huge quantities of email from both the Clintons and the DNC.PlatoSaid said:Via Wikileaks
Specifically, Assange planned to release emails that show the ties between Clinton and Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News.
“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia”, Assange said during an interview last week with RT.
http://universepolitics.com/2016/09/24/breaking-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-reveals-islamic-oct-surprise-that-will-destroy-hill/0 -
''Thinking Conservatives realise that for capitalism to enjoy broad popular support, the wage earners have to receive some of the benefits. ''
This is the absolute crux of the argument. If the very wealthy don;t give a little now, they will find the lower orders will elect governments pledging to take everything. IF you want the whole,thing to survive then pay your taxes and pay your workers.0 -
As it happens, I think the other 80% in Western countries would benefit considerably from no globalisation.Richard_Nabavi said:
Correction: It hasn't worked as well, relatively speaking for those outside the top 20% in the developed world. It might well be that it has still worked out well for them, relative to the alternative of no globalisation. In fact, I think that is very likely.rcs1000 said:Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
My objection to such a policy is that it would positively require us to keep hundreds of millions of people around the world living in dire poverty (by which I mean, wondering where the next meal is coming from, dying before reaching the age of 40 etc.)0 -
Indeed. Think what would have happened to prices of basics (food, clothing) were it not for globalization.Richard_Nabavi said:
Correction: It hasn't worked as well, relatively speaking for those outside the top 20% in the developed world. It might well be that it has still worked out well for them, relative to the alternative of no globalisation. In fact, I think that is very likely.rcs1000 said:Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
Clearly globalization works for efficiency, clearly it reduces inflation, clearly it is good for those whose jobs cannot be exported. Whether it is good for the rest compared to no globalization is an unknown. But the perception that it has been bad for the bottom 3 quintiles is real, and this equity issue needs to be addressed.0 -
Apparently it's all because we don't want Bulgarians here though. On some level I'm glad that the left is in such a state of denial over the real reasons for Brexit, it means they'll never come anywhere near the levers of power.Sean_F said:
Wages are obviously both a cost (to those paying them) and a benefit (to those receiving them).YellowSubmarine said:Wages are an economic cost not a benefit. By voluntarily restricting a cheaper and needed unit of production we will be harming not helping the UK economy in GDP terms. The loss of GDP growth will be focused on the poorest voters because it always is. I no longer care about that. The losers will have disproportionately voted Leave anyway. What amuses me is the intellectual gymnastics free market Brexiters will use to justify an extraordinarily left wing policy. Artificially inflating economic costs for redistributive purposes.
Thinking Conservatives realise that for capitalism to enjoy broad popular support, the wage earners have to receive some of the benefits.0 -
These are really good points. I think free trade is seen by many as an unmitigated good (based on economic theory and a desire for international cooperation and interdependence). It almost becomes a religious belief. But it has downsides which governments must guard against, even if they are accused of protectionism. For the record, I'm LD, pro-EU and anti-TTIP.MaxPB said:
Yes, I think the idea of internationalism has infected a lot of leftist thinking. I still don't understand their obsession with joining the EU. Just now we have someone who claims to be a Lib Dem espouse something I wouldn't be surprised to hear in my local conservative association, or read in a speech made by Mrs Thatcher at the height of her power. Yet here were are when leftists are calling wages an economic cost and hoping for the impoverishment of the poorest in our country, either by stagnant wages within the EU or by stagnant overall growth.glw said:
It is interesting that if we take those figures at face value, and I have no reason no to, we would think that the "left" (who are usually the ones most concerned about the "workers") would benefit from the justified anger of those being left behind, and yet it seems that that anger has been channelled by the likes of Brexit, Trump, and others on the right.MaxPB said:
Who knows, but I guess enough people thought it was worth a go wrt to Brexit.rcs1000 said:The same trend is true in the UK, the US and Japan. I have little doubt that if the numbers were ran for other countries, they would tell a similar story.
Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
The question is: would rolling back globalisation make these people richer?
Why do modern social democratic parties seem to put globalisation ahead of the living standards of their own supporters? Is it as simple as the dogma of internationalism is believed to be more important than material well being?0 -
I suspect that that minimum/living wage policies will have reduced the squeeze on the bottom quartile but done little for the next one up, albeit some of them will have benefited from reduced tax obligations.MaxPB said:Richard_Nabavi said:
Correction: It hasn't worked as well, relatively speaking for those outside the top 20% in the developed world. It might well be that it has still worked out well for them, relative to the alternative of no globalisation. In fact, I think that is very likely.rcs1000 said:Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
Shows how it has changed since the turn of the century. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar pattern here, maybe worse since 2004 for the lowest 20% here.0 -
It's only the post-communist expansion of the EU to include the eastern block that confuses you into conflating globalisation with European integration. The two things are unrelated historical processes.MaxPB said:
Yes, I think the idea of internationalism has infected a lot of leftist thinking. I still don't understand their obsession with joining the EU. Just now we have someone who claims to be a Lib Dem espouse something I wouldn't be surprised to hear in my local conservative association, or read in a speech made by Mrs Thatcher at the height of her power. Yet here were are when leftists are calling wages an economic cost and hoping for the impoverishment of the poorest in our country, either by stagnant wages within the EU or by stagnant overall growth.glw said:
It is interesting that if we take those figures at face value, and I have no reason no to, we would think that the "left" (who are usually the ones most concerned about the "workers") would benefit from the justified anger of those being left behind, and yet it seems that that anger has been channelled by the likes of Brexit, Trump, and others on the right.MaxPB said:
Who knows, but I guess enough people thought it was worth a go wrt to Brexit.rcs1000 said:The same trend is true in the UK, the US and Japan. I have little doubt that if the numbers were ran for other countries, they would tell a similar story.
Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
The question is: would rolling back globalisation make these people richer?
Why do modern social democratic parties seem to put globalisation ahead of the living standards of their own supporters? Is it as simple as the dogma of internationalism is believed to be more important than material well being?0 -
Just kicked up to a lead of 0.6% in Florida.nunu said:
Crucially she is leading by 0.1% in Florida again.Jobabob said:
Explain? Hillary wins NH. But that doesn't mean she wins the election.Pulpstar said:
We will *know* by New Hampshire.Jobabob said:JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.
On 538, she is at 62.2% chance (69.3% based on current polls if election held today).0 -
It's the old adage that things will have to change if we want them to stay the same.taffys said:''Thinking Conservatives realise that for capitalism to enjoy broad popular support, the wage earners have to receive some of the benefits. ''
This is the absolute crux of the argument. If the very wealthy don;t give a little now, they will find the lower orders will elect governments pledging to take everything. IF you want the whole,thing to survive then pay your taxes and pay your workers.0 -
Rasmussen National :
Clinton 42 .. Trump 41
Note - 6 point shift to Clinton over a week.
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_sep290 -
At the moment Clinton is in a very strong position. She did well in the debate and Trump failed the crucial "does he look like a President" test. If things stay like this Clinton wins at a canter. But this has been an unpredictable race and I am not convinced it is over yet.Barnesian said:
Just kicked up to a lead of 0.6%.nunu said:
Crucially she is leading by 0.1% in Florida again.Jobabob said:
Explain? Hillary wins NH. But that doesn't mean she wins the election.Pulpstar said:
We will *know* by New Hampshire.Jobabob said:JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.0 -
Ha.JackW said:Rasmussen National :
Clinton 42 .. Trump 41
Note - 6 point shift to Clinton over a week.
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_sep29
Do Trump fans still have their LA Times safety blanket?0 -
That's a decent score with Ras – which has a strong GOP house effect/leanJackW said:Rasmussen National :
Clinton 42 .. Trump 41
Note - 6 point shift to Clinton over a week.
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_sep290 -
Surely, it is the relative scarcity of labour vs capital at any given demand level that will decide the relative split of the rewards between labour and capital. And, within the labour market, it is the relative scarcity coupled with the productivity of a skill that will determine wage of that skill relative to other skills.DavidL said:
How on earth do you work that out? If someone is earning 10K and someone is earning £20K and they both increase by 10% the difference between them will increase rapidly: By the time that the £10K is £20K the £20K will be £40K meaning the differential has increased from £10K to £20K.Morris_Dancer said:Just on income growth etc, I think it's always likely the upper rates will increase relative to the lower quarters simply because if growth were all the same then the real terms difference would diminish (ie if everyone had a 10% pay increase every year for a century, by the end of the century there'd be far less real difference between the richest and poorest).
For differentials to decrease the lower paid need bigger increases, the exact opposite of what has happened.
I'd be grateful if any economist posting could correct me if I am wrong.0 -
But that is globalisation you fool, on a turbocharged level. In 2004 companies suddenly had unfettered access to a basically unlimited source of cheap labour. Whether by design or accident the enlargement of the EU had had severely deleterious effects on the working classes in the UK. Since we are unable to turn the clock back and deny the entry of the A10, Romania and Bulgaria or put limits on free movement within the EU, reversing globalisation and shutting down that unlimited cheap labour source requires leaving the EU.williamglenn said:
It's only the post-communist expansion of the EU to include the eastern block that confuses you into conflating globalisation with European integration. The two things are unrelated historical processes.MaxPB said:
Yes, I think the idea of internationalism has infected a lot of leftist thinking. I still don't understand their obsession with joining the EU. Just now we have someone who claims to be a Lib Dem espouse something I wouldn't be surprised to hear in my local conservative association, or read in a speech made by Mrs Thatcher at the height of her power. Yet here were are when leftists are calling wages an economic cost and hoping for the impoverishment of the poorest in our country, either by stagnant wages within the EU or by stagnant overall growth.glw said:
It is interesting that if we take those figures at face value, and I have no reason no to, we would think that the "left" (who are usually the ones most concerned about the "workers") would benefit from the justified anger of those being left behind, and yet it seems that that anger has been channelled by the likes of Brexit, Trump, and others on the right.MaxPB said:
Who knows, but I guess enough people thought it was worth a go wrt to Brexit.rcs1000 said:The same trend is true in the UK, the US and Japan. I have little doubt that if the numbers were ran for other countries, they would tell a similar story.
Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
The question is: would rolling back globalisation make these people richer?
Why do modern social democratic parties seem to put globalisation ahead of the living standards of their own supporters? Is it as simple as the dogma of internationalism is believed to be more important than material well being?0 -
At least that was presented as an aspiration, not a fact. There are no facts about the economy in 14 years time and Osborne knew that.Anorak said:0 -
PPP
National: Clinton 44, Trump 40, Johnson 6, McMullin 2, Stein 1. Clinton 49, Trump 45 head to head: https://t.co/HDM78gupPe0 -
Not in the least. Those are encouraging polls for Clinton, but far from an overwhelming lead.DavidL said:
At the moment Clinton is in a very strong position. She did well in the debate and Trump failed the crucial "does he look like a President" test. If things stay like this Clinton wins at a canter. But this has been an unpredictable race and I am not convinced it is over yet.Barnesian said:
Just kicked up to a lead of 0.6%.nunu said:
Crucially she is leading by 0.1% in Florida again.Jobabob said:
Explain? Hillary wins NH. But that doesn't mean she wins the election.Pulpstar said:
We will *know* by New Hampshire.Jobabob said:JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.0 -
''It's the old adage that things will have to change if we want them to stay the same.''
That's why for me, America becomes more unstable and ungovernable if Hillary wins. She is the personification of the people who have prospered most out of globalisation, and will do everything she can to maintain an unsustainable status quo.
0 -
Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.0
-
How exactly do 538 adjust published poll numbers?JackW said:0 -
Google trends... google trends...0
-
You're being deliberately obtuse. It was a choice of the UK government to allow free migration of labour from day one, but they had also introduced a minimum wage, so there is a floor on how cheap labour employed in the UK can get.MaxPB said:
But that is globalisation you fool, on a turbocharged level. In 2004 companies suddenly had unfettered access to a basically unlimited source of cheap labour. Whether by design or accident the enlargement of the EU had had severely deleterious effects on the working classes in the UK. Since we are unable to turn the clock back and deny the entry of the A10, Romania and Bulgaria or put limits on free movement within the EU, reversing globalisation and shutting down that unlimited cheap labour source requires leaving the EU.williamglenn said:
It's only the post-communist expansion of the EU to include the eastern block that confuses you into conflating globalisation with European integration. The two things are unrelated historical processes.MaxPB said:
Yes, I think the idea of internationalism has infected a lot of leftist thinking. I still don't understand their obsession with joining the EU. Just now we have someone who claims to be a Lib Dem espouse something I wouldn't be surprised to hear in my local conservative association, or read in a speech made by Mrs Thatcher at the height of her power. Yet here were are when leftists are calling wages an economic cost and hoping for the impoverishment of the poorest in our country, either by stagnant wages within the EU or by stagnant overall growth.
If a UK company primarily wants cheaper workers, they employ them in another jurisdiction so migration is neither here nor there.0 -
Not just that. Clinton has to do as badly as he did in the 1st. And more people saw the first one and have a bad impression of him now.SeanT said:
Trump has to win big in the 2nd debate, or its overBarnesian said:
Just kicked up to a lead of 0.6% in Florida.nunu said:
Crucially she is leading by 0.1% in Florida again.Jobabob said:
Explain? Hillary wins NH. But that doesn't mean she wins the election.Pulpstar said:
We will *know* by New Hampshire.Jobabob said:JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.
On 538, she is at 62.2% chance (69.3% based on current polls if election held today).
From the post below, him and Gulliani think he won anyway0 -
One would like to think the civil service has been frantically working behind the scenes to prepare the ground for the negotiating process once A50 is triggered and allowing 6 months between the referendum and the triggering of A50 seems reasonable.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
I suspect the outline of that negotiating stance will be apparent at the Conservative Conference next week along with an outline of Hammond's new economic policy and possibly a series of "new" policy launches from the likes of Rudd and other ministers.
0 -
So we are all about 17% poorer in terms of international buying power than on June 22nd.Pulpstar said:Official HMRC Oct: 1.1635 €/£ / 1.2967 $
Everyone enjoy limbo dancing ?
0 -
Mr. Dawning, Cameron and Osborne were derelict in their duty by doing none of the work when the referendum was on a knife edge (or by permitting the Civil Service to make contingency plans).
May's having to make up for that lost time.0 -
I do think Trump is edging into Hail Mary territory since the debate. My expectation is that he will try something even more outrageous and it will fail but there is always a risk he might just alight on something. Clinton is carrying a baggage train a mile long. It is a case of selecting and opening the case that is going to make people hesitate.Sean_F said:
Not in the least. Those are encouraging polls for Clinton, but far from an overwhelming lead.DavidL said:
At the moment Clinton is in a very strong position. She did well in the debate and Trump failed the crucial "does he look like a President" test. If things stay like this Clinton wins at a canter. But this has been an unpredictable race and I am not convinced it is over yet.Barnesian said:
Just kicked up to a lead of 0.6%.nunu said:
Crucially she is leading by 0.1% in Florida again.Jobabob said:
Explain? Hillary wins NH. But that doesn't mean she wins the election.Pulpstar said:
We will *know* by New Hampshire.Jobabob said:JackW said:
PPP State polls : All post debate.foxinsoxuk said:
Are those shifts or leads?rottenborough said:In case anyone's missed them, Public Policy have row of polls out according to 538:
FL - Clinton +2
NC - Clinton +2
Colorado +6
CO - Clinton 51 .. Trump 44
FL - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 49 .. Trump 45
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 44
VA - Clnton 49 .. Trump 43
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/09/clinton-leads-in-key-battlegrounds-seen-as-big-debate-winner.html
It is the two states in the South East that will terrify Trump – if Hillary wins FL and/or NC it's game over and we'll all be tucked up in bed reasonably early.0 -
I'm not sure the more intimate town hall format suits Trump. However his most significant weakness is his inability to hold the line for 90 minutes one on one with Clinton baiting him. Does he have the temperament to ignore the elephant traps he seems to want to willingly step into and fight against constantly.SeanT said:Trump has to win big in the 2nd debate, or its over
On the basis of the first debate it seems unlikely.0 -
New York train crash looks bad.0
-
17cents, about 11%. But that was a peak in the £ that would have put a lot of exporters out of business if it had been sustained.MikeSmithson said:
So we are all about 17% poorer in terms of international buying power than on June 22nd.Pulpstar said:Official HMRC Oct: 1.1635 €/£ / 1.2967 $
Everyone enjoy limbo dancing ?0 -
Yes - It is good negotiating tactics. Trump would approve - not a joke.SeanT said:
Duh. She's said there will be no running commentary. She'd told parliament to F off. Quite rightly, she is keeping shtum, as she looks at her cards. This is a game of poker.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
The ONE signal she is giving out is that she is prepared to walk away, into Hard Brexit, if the EU does not compromise. That is to say, she is doing the opposite to Cameron, who told his allies that he would never campaign for Remain, then asked them if they'd give him a reasonable deal even though they knew that he would accept anything.
So far, she is proving an infinitely superior negotiator to "Dave". Idiotic Continuity Remainers like you and Ken Clarke would hobble her from the beginning.
I just wonder whether she can keep up "Brexit means Brexit" and "no running commentary" throughout the Tory conference with the like of Andrew Neil asking probing questions.0 -
It's more likely that he will be rude about ( during or more likely after) a member of the public asking a question, interrupt a member of public or look bored/annoyed at a question.JackW said:
I'm not sure the more intimate town hall format suits Trump. However his most significant weakness is his inability to hold the line for 90 minutes one on one with Clinton baiting him. Does he have the temperament to ignore the elephant traps he seems to want to willingly step into and fight against constantly.SeanT said:Trump has to win big in the 2nd debate, or its over
On the basis of the first debate it seems unlikely.
He just is a massively obnoxious person and I can't see how he can hide this.0 -
You honestly think that May will go near Andrew Neil? Not a chance.Barnesian said:
Yes - It is good negotiating tactics. Trump would approve - not a joke.SeanT said:
Duh. She's said there will be no running commentary. She'd told parliament to F off. Quite rightly, she is keeping shtum, as she looks at her cards. This is a game of poker.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
The ONE signal she is giving out is that she is prepared to walk away, into Hard Brexit, if the EU does not compromise. That is to say, she is doing the opposite to Cameron, who told his allies that he would never campaign for Remain, then asked them if they'd give him a reasonable deal even though they knew that he would accept anything.
So far, she is proving an infinitely superior negotiator to "Dave". Idiotic Continuity Remainers like you and Ken Clarke would hobble her from the beginning.
I just wonder whether she can keep up "Brexit means Brexit" and "no running commentary" throughout the Tory conference with the like of Andrew Neil asking probing questions.0 -
I preferred the old school, dryer, stauncher Stark Dawning over this new flaccid edition.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
0 -
Mind you, the previous dip was due to the unexpected credit crunch. This is (relative) poverty that we voted for.SeanT said:
The £ was roughly around 1.16 against the € for most of 2008-2014MikeSmithson said:
So we are all about 17% poorer in terms of international buying power than on June 22nd.Pulpstar said:Official HMRC Oct: 1.1635 €/£ / 1.2967 $
Everyone enjoy limbo dancing ?
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y0 -
The Grand Tour is going to film in their big tent in Whitby next month.0
-
Your maths is faulty. If everyone grows at 10%, the ratios are unchanged.Morris_Dancer said:Just on income growth etc, I think it's always likely the upper rates will increase relative to the lower quarters simply because if growth were all the same then the real terms difference would diminish (ie if everyone had a 10% pay increase every year for a century, by the end of the century there'd be far less real difference between the richest and poorest).
However, recent rates have been substantially far apart. This is worsened by high profile people acting in ways which do not endear them to the public (Fred Goodwin, Philip Green etc) and the prolonged ultra-low interest rates which has seen assets become increasingly difficult to afford for people not already on the housing ladder.
[Bit rambly, and a shade off-colour, so hopefully that makes sense].
Edited extra bit: I think rain is forecast for Malaysia so check that if you're contemplating a safety car bet.0 -
Good polling for Clinton. Hers to lose now, if she beats Trump in the next debate then there is no way back for him unless there is a huge unpolled part of the US that turn out on election day or say they will vote for Clinton and then vote for Trump in the privacy of the polling booth.0
-
You're right on that! But will her ministers be able to resist it? Or will Neil be sitting there all alone with an empty chair?DavidL said:
You honestly think that May will go near Andrew Neil? Not a chance.Barnesian said:
Yes - It is good negotiating tactics. Trump would approve - not a joke.SeanT said:
Duh. She's said there will be no running commentary. She'd told parliament to F off. Quite rightly, she is keeping shtum, as she looks at her cards. This is a game of poker.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
The ONE signal she is giving out is that she is prepared to walk away, into Hard Brexit, if the EU does not compromise. That is to say, she is doing the opposite to Cameron, who told his allies that he would never campaign for Remain, then asked them if they'd give him a reasonable deal even though they knew that he would accept anything.
So far, she is proving an infinitely superior negotiator to "Dave". Idiotic Continuity Remainers like you and Ken Clarke would hobble her from the beginning.
I just wonder whether she can keep up "Brexit means Brexit" and "no running commentary" throughout the Tory conference with the like of Andrew Neil asking probing questions.0 -
I think the town hall format suits him better. By their nature try are more bitty and don't require him to stick on topic for 'long' periods of time. I am planning to Kay off a portion of my Clinton position pre debate as I smell a comeback narrative for debate 2. Given that Trump has now set the bar so low a slug could clear it he can hardly disappoint a second time.JackW said:
I'm not sure the more intimate town hall format suits Trump. However his most significant weakness is his inability to hold the line for 90 minutes one on one with Clinton baiting him. Does he have the temperament to ignore the elephant traps he seems to want to willingly step into and fight against constantly.SeanT said:Trump has to win big in the 2nd debate, or its over
On the basis of the first debate it seems unlikely.0 -
I think, in an act of desperation, he will attack Clinton about her husband's affairs as he's half promised to do.619 said:
It's more likely that he will be rude about ( during or more likely after) a member of the public asking a question, interrupt a member of public or look bored/annoyed at a question.JackW said:
I'm not sure the more intimate town hall format suits Trump. However his most significant weakness is his inability to hold the line for 90 minutes one on one with Clinton baiting him. Does he have the temperament to ignore the elephant traps he seems to want to willingly step into and fight against constantly.SeanT said:Trump has to win big in the 2nd debate, or its over
On the basis of the first debate it seems unlikely.
He just is a massively obnoxious person and I can't see how he can hide this.0 -
The conservative blog Red State is none to pleased with the Trumper.SeanT said:
Yes, I can't see him doing that well in any debate form. This is now Clinton's to lose. But she could lose it with, say, another serious fainting fit.JackW said:
I'm not sure the more intimate town hall format suits Trump. However his most significant weakness is his inability to hold the line for 90 minutes one on one with Clinton baiting him. Does he have the temperament to ignore the elephant traps he seems to want to willingly step into and fight against constantly.SeanT said:Trump has to win big in the 2nd debate, or its over
On the basis of the first debate it seems unlikely.
60-70% probability for Clinton looks about right
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/09/29/in-slamming-the-seriousness-of-clintons-campaign-trump-says-hell-make-all-your-dreams-come-true/
>>>
"There are many things you could say about Hillary Clinton and her campaign, but “unserious” is not one of those things. Her whole life has been about gaining this power, so to say her campaign is unserious is ridiculous.
"By contrast, much could be said about a man who refuses to prepare for debates, clowns his way through rallies and interviews, and makes broad, sweeping promises with no plan to follow through."0 -
Yes, that would be great outcome – shutting ourselves out of the biggest single market on Earth.SeanT said:
Hopefully she can avoid being pinned down. If she is pinned down, she should just be honest, and say a Good negotiator does not reveal his best hopes and bottom lines before the argument begins - then she should add that Yes she will walk away into Hard Brexit, if necesssary. End of.Barnesian said:
Yes - It is good negotiating tactics. Trump would approve - not a joke.SeanT said:
Duh. She's said there will be no running commentary. She'd told parliament to F off. Quite rightly, she is keeping shtum, as she looks at her cards. This is a game of poker.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
The ONE signal she is giving out is that she is prepared to walk away, into Hard Brexit, if the EU does not compromise. That is to say, she is doing the opposite to Cameron, who told his allies that he would never campaign for Remain, then asked them if they'd give him a reasonable deal even though they knew that he would accept anything.
So far, she is proving an infinitely superior negotiator to "Dave". Idiotic Continuity Remainers like you and Ken Clarke would hobble her from the beginning.
I just wonder whether she can keep up "Brexit means Brexit" and "no running commentary" throughout the Tory conference with the like of Andrew Neil asking probing questions.
It's truly amazing what the once-sensible EEA Leavers have come to accept.
Liam Fox deserves credit for softening your sorry minds.0 -
Actually the biggest single market is the US!Jobabob said:
Yes, that would be great outcome – shutting ourselves out of the biggest single market on Earth.SeanT said:
Hopefully she can avoid being pinned down. If she is pinned down, she should just be honest, and say a Good negotiator does not reveal his best hopes and bottom lines before the argument begins - then she should add that Yes she will walk away into Hard Brexit, if necesssary. End of.Barnesian said:
Yes - It is good negotiating tactics. Trump would approve - not a joke.SeanT said:
Duh. She's said there will be no running commentary. She'd told parliament to F off. Quite rightly, she is keeping shtum, as she looks at her cards. This is a game of poker.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
The ONE signal she is giving out is that she is prepared to walk away, into Hard Brexit, if the EU does not compromise. That is to say, she is doing the opposite to Cameron, who told his allies that he would never campaign for Remain, then asked them if they'd give him a reasonable deal even though they knew that he would accept anything.
So far, she is proving an infinitely superior negotiator to "Dave". Idiotic Continuity Remainers like you and Ken Clarke would hobble her from the beginning.
I just wonder whether she can keep up "Brexit means Brexit" and "no running commentary" throughout the Tory conference with the like of Andrew Neil asking probing questions.
It's truly amazing what the once-sensible EEA Leavers have come to accept.
Liam Fox deserves credit for softening your sorry minds.0 -
I broadly agree with this. We were rich because we had a monopoly on manufacturing. This enabled us in the west to capture capture a disproportionate share of the wealth, and enabled guys in Michigan to earn $40/hour in Auto manufacturing and live high on the hog.Richard_Nabavi said:
Correction: It hasn't worked as well, relatively speaking for those outside the top 20% in the developed world. It might well be that it has still worked out well for them, relative to the alternative of no globalisation. In fact, I think that is very likely.rcs1000 said:Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
But, of course, this model depended on us - the West - being able to export manufactured products, and use those profits to import the commodities we needed - whether oil, aluminium, rare earths or whatever.
Let's imagine we get all protectionist to help those in Port Talbot. Well, ultimately, we need to import the iron ore and the coal needed to run those furnaces. What are we going to export in this protectionist World to make that work?0 -
Can you post an example of a country which is shut out of the single market ?Jobabob said:
Yes, that would be great outcome – shutting ourselves out of the biggest single market on Earth.SeanT said:
Hopefully she can avoid being pinned down. If she is pinned down, she should just be honest, and say a Good negotiator does not reveal his best hopes and bottom lines before the argument begins - then she should add that Yes she will walk away into Hard Brexit, if necesssary. End of.Barnesian said:
Yes - It is good negotiating tactics. Trump would approve - not a joke.SeanT said:
Duh. She's said there will be no running commentary. She'd told parliament to F off. Quite rightly, she is keeping shtum, as she looks at her cards. This is a game of poker.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
The ONE signal she is giving out is that she is prepared to walk away, into Hard Brexit, if the EU does not compromise. That is to say, she is doing the opposite to Cameron, who told his allies that he would never campaign for Remain, then asked them if they'd give him a reasonable deal even though they knew that he would accept anything.
So far, she is proving an infinitely superior negotiator to "Dave". Idiotic Continuity Remainers like you and Ken Clarke would hobble her from the beginning.
I just wonder whether she can keep up "Brexit means Brexit" and "no running commentary" throughout the Tory conference with the like of Andrew Neil asking probing questions.0 -
Perhaps Theresa May only appointed the likes of Liam Fox to make her bluff more convincing?Jobabob said:
Yes, that would be great outcome – shutting ourselves out of the biggest single market on Earth.SeanT said:
Hopefully she can avoid being pinned down. If she is pinned down, she should just be honest, and say a Good negotiator does not reveal his best hopes and bottom lines before the argument begins - then she should add that Yes she will walk away into Hard Brexit, if necesssary. End of.Barnesian said:
Yes - It is good negotiating tactics. Trump would approve - not a joke.SeanT said:
Duh. She's said there will be no running commentary. She'd told parliament to F off. Quite rightly, she is keeping shtum, as she looks at her cards. This is a game of poker.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
The ONE signal she is giving out is that she is prepared to walk away, into Hard Brexit, if the EU does not compromise. That is to say, she is doing the opposite to Cameron, who told his allies that he would never campaign for Remain, then asked them if they'd give him a reasonable deal even though they knew that he would accept anything.
So far, she is proving an infinitely superior negotiator to "Dave". Idiotic Continuity Remainers like you and Ken Clarke would hobble her from the beginning.
I just wonder whether she can keep up "Brexit means Brexit" and "no running commentary" throughout the Tory conference with the like of Andrew Neil asking probing questions.
It's truly amazing what the once-sensible EEA Leavers have come to accept.
Liam Fox deserves credit for softening your sorry minds.0 -
I see alot of Hillary love here today - anyway I checked with THE authority on these matters, and the sage of Crosby thinks it is
"All going to plan ^_~"0 -
And China and India EACH have twice as many potential consumers as the EU...MaxPB said:
Actually the biggest single market is the US!Jobabob said:
Yes, that would be great outcome – shutting ourselves out of the biggest single market on Earth.SeanT said:
Hopefully she can avoid being pinned down. If she is pinned down, she should just be honest, and say a Good negotiator does not reveal his best hopes and bottom lines before the argument begins - then she should add that Yes she will walk away into Hard Brexit, if necesssary. End of.Barnesian said:
Yes - It is good negotiating tactics. Trump would approve - not a joke.SeanT said:
Duh. She's said there will be no running commentary. She'd told parliament to F off. Quite rightly, she is keeping shtum, as she looks at her cards. This is a game of poker.Stark_Dawning said:Worryingly for the country, Clarke's words have more than a ring of truth. It's been months now and what have Boris, Fox and DD come up with? A phantom trade deal with Australia and the Royal Yacht Britannia. Sorry, but this is gruel. May needs to sit all three of them down and put together some objectives. We can then reassess in a month or two. It can't go on like this.
The ONE signal she is giving out is that she is prepared to walk away, into Hard Brexit, if the EU does not compromise. That is to say, she is doing the opposite to Cameron, who told his allies that he would never campaign for Remain, then asked them if they'd give him a reasonable deal even though they knew that he would accept anything.
So far, she is proving an infinitely superior negotiator to "Dave". Idiotic Continuity Remainers like you and Ken Clarke would hobble her from the beginning.
I just wonder whether she can keep up "Brexit means Brexit" and "no running commentary" throughout the Tory conference with the like of Andrew Neil asking probing questions.
It's truly amazing what the once-sensible EEA Leavers have come to accept.
Liam Fox deserves credit for softening your sorry minds.0 -
Surely it is about adding value. Commodities exporters sell us raw value materials, which our companies then add greater and lesser degrees of value to. In a market like steel manufacturing, the necessary added value to be profitable is very high since steel is a commodity as well. Finished manufactured goods such as cars and planes less so since added value in manufacturing can be augmented by marketing.rcs1000 said:
I broadly agree with this. We were rich because we had a monopoly on manufacturing. This enabled us in the west to capture capture a disproportionate share of the wealth, and enabled guys in Michigan to earn $40/hour in Auto manufacturing and live high on the hog.Richard_Nabavi said:
Correction: It hasn't worked as well, relatively speaking for those outside the top 20% in the developed world. It might well be that it has still worked out well for them, relative to the alternative of no globalisation. In fact, I think that is very likely.rcs1000 said:Globalisation has worked out well for the highly educated in developed world, and for most people in China. It has not worked well for those outside the top 20% in the developed world.
But, of course, this model depended on us - the West - being able to export manufactured products, and use those profits to import the commodities we needed - whether oil, aluminium, rare earths or whatever.
Let's imagine we get all protectionist to help those in Port Talbot. Well, ultimately, we need to import the iron ore and the coal needed to run those furnaces. What are we going to export in this protectionist World to make that work?0 -
Paul Waldman of "The Week" looks at Trump's Debate 2 prospects :
http://theweek.com/articles/651768/why-donald-trump-even-worse-second-debate0 -
Thankfully no fatalities.JosiasJessop said:New York train crash looks bad.
0 -
3 fatalities reportedSunil_Prasannan said:
Thankfully no fatalities.JosiasJessop said:New York train crash looks bad.
0 -
He seems clearer on his messaging now: the Movement, I'm for you, I'm with you. It's all about identity, not competence.Alistair said:
I think the town hall format suits him better. By their nature try are more bitty and don't require him to stick on topic for 'long' periods of time. I am planning to Kay off a portion of my Clinton position pre debate as I smell a comeback narrative for debate 2. Given that Trump has now set the bar so low a slug could clear it he can hardly disappoint a second time.JackW said:
I'm not sure the more intimate town hall format suits Trump. However his most significant weakness is his inability to hold the line for 90 minutes one on one with Clinton baiting him. Does he have the temperament to ignore the elephant traps he seems to want to willingly step into and fight against constantly.SeanT said:Trump has to win big in the 2nd debate, or its over
On the basis of the first debate it seems unlikely.0 -
Cars and pharma seem to be our two main exports - chinese tat the main import.SeanT said:
The £ is doing its job as a shock absorber. Besides it was significantly overvalued prior to Brexit, as our Trade Deficit confirms.FF43 said:
Mind you, the previous dip was due to the unexpected credit crunch. This is (relative) poverty that we voted for.SeanT said:
The £ was roughly around 1.16 against the € for most of 2008-2014MikeSmithson said:
So we are all about 17% poorer in terms of international buying power than on June 22nd.Pulpstar said:Official HMRC Oct: 1.1635 €/£ / 1.2967 $
Everyone enjoy limbo dancing ?
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y0 -
Precisely. And it is far from clear who are the migrants that are here and working now, that any thinking Brexiter will actually be sending home?williamglenn said:
You're being deliberately obtuse. It was a choice of the UK government to allow free migration of labour from day one, but they had also introduced a minimum wage, so there is a floor on how cheap labour employed in the UK can get.MaxPB said:
But that is globalisation you fool, on a turbocharged level. In 2004 companies suddenly had unfettered access to a basically unlimited source of cheap labour. Whether by design or accident the enlargement of the EU had had severely deleterious effects on the working classes in the UK. Since we are unable to turn the clock back and deny the entry of the A10, Romania and Bulgaria or put limits on free movement within the EU, reversing globalisation and shutting down that unlimited cheap labour source requires leaving the EU.williamglenn said:
It's only the post-communist expansion of the EU to include the eastern block that confuses you into conflating globalisation with European integration. The two things are unrelated historical processes.MaxPB said:
Yes, I think the idea of internationalism has infected a lot of leftist thinking. I still don't understand their obsession with joining the EU. Just now we have someone who claims to be a Lib Dem espouse something I wouldn't be surprised to hear in my local conservative association, or read in a speech made by Mrs Thatcher at the height of her power. Yet here were are when leftists are calling wages an economic cost and hoping for the impoverishment of the poorest in our country, either by stagnant wages within the EU or by stagnant overall growth.
If a UK company primarily wants cheaper workers, they employ them in another jurisdiction so migration is neither here nor there.
There is a huge difference between analysing that people kicked the EU in part because of rising inequality in a disfunctioning economy, which is surely true, and concluding that EU membership is actually responsible for the inequality. The same trend is there almost anywhere you care to look - the US, Brazil, Japan, Russia, etc. Actually many of the least unequal developed economies are inside the EU, because its economics has always had a social dimension.
Brexiters are simultaneously avocating a more free-market free-booting global economic strategy for the UK, and also that the grotesque inequalities that are spreading across the world will somehow be resolved here in the UK. Quite how this is supposed to work, I do not see.
0 -
That would be a disaster becauseBarnesian said:
I think, in an act of desperation, he will attack Clinton about her husband's affairs as he's half promised to do.619 said:
It's more likely that he will be rude about ( during or more likely after) a member of the public asking a question, interrupt a member of public or look bored/annoyed at a question.JackW said:
I'm not sure the more intimate town hall format suits Trump. However his most significant weakness is his inability to hold the line for 90 minutes one on one with Clinton baiting him. Does he have the temperament to ignore the elephant traps he seems to want to willingly step into and fight against constantly.SeanT said:Trump has to win big in the 2nd debate, or its over
On the basis of the first debate it seems unlikely.
He just is a massively obnoxious person and I can't see how he can hide this.
a) no one blames Hillary for that and her likeability goes up when mentioned
b) he is a serial adulterer who called the women Bill had affairs with 'Ugly pigs'.
So it's a losers strategy really.0 -
-
They will be resolved at Calais rather than in Lincolnshire.IanB2 said:
inequalities that are spreading across the world will somehow be resolved here in the UK. Quite how this is supposed to work, I do not see.williamglenn said:
You're being deliberately obtuse. It was a choice of the UK government to allow free migration of labour from day one, but they had also introduced a minimum wage, so there is a floor on how cheap labour employed in the UK can get.MaxPB said:
But that is globalisation you fool, on a turbocharged level. In 2004 companies suddenly had unfettered access to a basically unlimited source of cheap labour. Whether by design or accident the enlargement of the EU had had severely deleterious effects on the working classes in the UK. Since we are unable to turn the clock back and deny the entry of the A10, Romania and Bulgaria or put limits on free movement within the EU, reversing globalisation and shutting down that unlimited cheap labour source requires leaving the EU.williamglenn said:
It's only the post-communist expansion of the EU to include the eastern block that confuses you into conflating globalisation with European integration. The two things are unrelated historical processes.MaxPB said:
Yes, I think the idea of internationalism has infected a lot of leftist thinking. I still don't understand their obsession with joining the EU. Just now we have someone who claims to be a Lib Dem espouse something I wouldn't be surprised to hear in my local conservative association, or read in a speech made by Mrs Thatcher at the height of her power. Yet here were are when leftists are calling wages an economic cost and hoping for the impoverishment of the poorest in our country, either by stagnant wages within the EU or by stagnant overall growth.
If a UK company primarily wants cheaper workers, they employ them in another jurisdiction so migration is neither here nor there.
0 -
0
-
Doesn't mean he won't do it. I think he is angry and vindictive and trying desperately to control it.619 said:
That would be a disaster becauseBarnesian said:
I think, in an act of desperation, he will attack Clinton about her husband's affairs as he's half promised to do.619 said:
It's more likely that he will be rude about ( during or more likely after) a member of the public asking a question, interrupt a member of public or look bored/annoyed at a question.JackW said:
I'm not sure the more intimate town hall format suits Trump. However his most significant weakness is his inability to hold the line for 90 minutes one on one with Clinton baiting him. Does he have the temperament to ignore the elephant traps he seems to want to willingly step into and fight against constantly.SeanT said:Trump has to win big in the 2nd debate, or its over
On the basis of the first debate it seems unlikely.
He just is a massively obnoxious person and I can't see how he can hide this.
a) no one blames Hillary for that and her likeability goes up when mentioned
b) he is a serial adulterer who called the women Bill had affairs with 'Ugly pigs'.
So it's a losers strategy really.0
