politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why you shouldn’t rely on the BREXIT experience as a pointer t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why you shouldn’t rely on the BREXIT experience as a pointer to a Trump victory
Amazon
Comments
-
First! And yes, shy Trumpers are probably being overstated somewhat!0
-
A close second!0
-
The other big difference between U.S. and British polls, even those carried out by names that we know and trust, are the huge variations reported, even over very short time spans.
Take, for example, the State of Texas - hugely important in terms of its size. On Saturday Ipsos gave the Republicans a lead of 14%, whereas just one day later, YouGov had the GOP lead down to a tiny, moe figure of 2%.
Say this very quietly, but one could very easily come to the conclusion that one or other or perhaps both haven't got a clue about the true picture.
Oh well, we'll know for sure in a little over two weeks' time.0 -
Morning. Like many here I'm failing to understand the US polling. Small sample sizes, no data tables and a seemingly endless number of new pollsters. Where is the US equivalanet of the BPI?peter_from_putney said:The other big difference between U.S. and British polls, even those carried out by names that we know and trust, are the huge variations reported, even over very short time spans.
Take, for example, the State of Texas - hugely important in terms of its size. On Saturday Ipsos gave the Republicans a lead of 14%, whereas just one day later, YouGov had the GOP lead down to a tiny, moe figure of 2%.
Say this very quietly, but one could very easily come to the conclusion that one or other or perhaps both haven't got a clue about the true picture.
Oh well, we'll know for sure in a little over two weeks' time.
On the subject of the actual election, with so much variance in the polling it could be anything between a Clinton landslide and a big Trump win. Not bet much on this, but the party's booked and the popcorn's ordered for Nov 8th!0 -
The 538 average for Texas is 5%, 2% is a reasonable data point around that and the Ipsos poll has a sample of 400 voters, so it'll throw up a weird number from time to time. There are lots of polls out there many of which have quite small samples, so you'd expect to be able to find some contradictory outliers if you look for then.peter_from_putney said:The other big difference between U.S. and British polls, even those carried out by names that we know and trust, are the huge variations reported, even over very short time spans.
Take, for example, the State of Texas - hugely important in terms of its size. On Saturday Ipsos gave the Republicans a lead of 14%, whereas just one day later, YouGov had the GOP lead down to a tiny, moe figure of 2%.
Say this very quietly, but one could very easily come to the conclusion that one or other or perhaps both haven't got a clue about the true picture.
Oh well, we'll know for sure in a little over two weeks' time.
Overall I don't think the polls in this race are particularly divergent, apart from the LA Times tracker, which is experimental, and Rasmussen, which is doing exactly what we'd expect Rasmussen to do.
The part that's hard to call is what will happen down-ballot, because there's no recent precedent for a nominee and the party that nominated them to basically disown each other.0 -
The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA0
-
The Independent: Government 'may have to slash corporation tax' to put pressure on EU in Brexit negotiations. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0PLxjzA0
-
MoE on a sample of 400 from 13m registered voters in Texas is around 5%, so a "real" figure of around 8% could give (with rounding) figures of both 2% and 14% without stretching the statistics beyond breaking point. So from that perspective they are almost useless, no one really has a scooby.edmundintokyo said:
The 538 average for Texas is 5%, 2% is a reasonable data point around that and the Ipsos poll has a sample of 400 voters, so it'll throw up a weird number from time to time. There are lots of polls out there many of which have quite small samples, so you'd expect to be able to find some contradictory outliers if you look for then.peter_from_putney said:The other big difference between U.S. and British polls, even those carried out by names that we know and trust, are the huge variations reported, even over very short time spans.
Take, for example, the State of Texas - hugely important in terms of its size. On Saturday Ipsos gave the Republicans a lead of 14%, whereas just one day later, YouGov had the GOP lead down to a tiny, moe figure of 2%.
Say this very quietly, but one could very easily come to the conclusion that one or other or perhaps both haven't got a clue about the true picture.
Oh well, we'll know for sure in a little over two weeks' time.
Overall I don't think the polls in this race are particularly divergent, apart from the LA Times tracker, which is experimental, and Rasmussen, which is doing exactly what we'd expect Rasmussen to do.
The part that's hard to call is what will happen down-ballot, because there's no recent precedent for a nominee and the party that nominated them to basically disown each other.0 -
They're not useless: First they both tell you the same thing, which is that Trump is winning in Texas, and secondly you can combine them with other polls to get a reasonably precise view of what's happening, which is that he's winning Texas but by less that a candidate who was going to become President would be winning Texas.Indigo said:
MoE on a sample of 400 from 13m registered voters in Texas is around 5%, so a "real" figure of around 8% could give (with rounding) figures of both 2% and 14% without stretching the statistics beyond breaking point. So from that perspective they are almost useless, no one really has a scooby.edmundintokyo said:
The 538 average for Texas is 5%, 2% is a reasonable data point around that and the Ipsos poll has a sample of 400 voters, so it'll throw up a weird number from time to time. There are lots of polls out there many of which have quite small samples, so you'd expect to be able to find some contradictory outliers if you look for then.peter_from_putney said:The other big difference between U.S. and British polls, even those carried out by names that we know and trust, are the huge variations reported, even over very short time spans.
Take, for example, the State of Texas - hugely important in terms of its size. On Saturday Ipsos gave the Republicans a lead of 14%, whereas just one day later, YouGov had the GOP lead down to a tiny, moe figure of 2%.
Say this very quietly, but one could very easily come to the conclusion that one or other or perhaps both haven't got a clue about the true picture.
Oh well, we'll know for sure in a little over two weeks' time.
Overall I don't think the polls in this race are particularly divergent, apart from the LA Times tracker, which is experimental, and Rasmussen, which is doing exactly what we'd expect Rasmussen to do.
The part that's hard to call is what will happen down-ballot, because there's no recent precedent for a nominee and the party that nominated them to basically disown each other.
There was a good case for saying noone had a scooby in the Brexit polling because there was much less precedent, and different methodologies were telling contradictory stories. But in this case, there's plenty of evidence and it's reasonably consistent. Hillary is heading for a comfortable win, as per multiple scoobies.
Down-ballot, on the other hand, is anybody's guess.0 -
Mr Jones also said the final “exit deal” should also be subject to votes in all four UK parliaments and assemblies – a position backed by Ms Sturgeon.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
The options will be 'The Negotiated EU deal' or 'No Deal' (aka chaotic Brexit) - I can imagine Sturgeon voting it down, the better to further independence - irrespective of the contents of the deal......why would May want to risk the fortunes of the other 92% of the UK on the whims of a party created to bring about its destruction?0 -
Quite. Are republicans that can't stand Trump going to turn out to vote for Republicans down ticket, or stay at home.edmundintokyo said:Down-ballot, on the other hand, is anybody's guess.
Also are they going to decide on the day that the only question that really matters to them is who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, and turn out for Trump at the last minute whilst holding their nose with both hands and gritting their teeth.
0 -
Is Foreign Affairs a devolved competence to any of the regional parliaments ?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Jones also said the final “exit deal” should also be subject to votes in all four UK parliaments and assemblies – a position backed by Ms Sturgeon.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
The options will be 'The Negotiated EU deal' or 'No Deal' (aka chaotic Brexit) - I can imagine Sturgeon voting it down, the better to further independence - irrespective of the contents of the deal......why would May want to risk the fortunes of the other 92% of the UK on the whims of a party created to bring about its destruction?0 -
I wonder if May's strategy is to get a very soft Brexit and blame it on Sturgeon?0
-
I agree with Mike. Where he says "a Clinton bet doesn’t offer much value", he's absolutely right - but it offers more than one on Trump. Clinton is best-priced at 1/5; I'd make her closer to 1/10. But extracting value from very odds-on prices isn't tremendous fun.0
-
No. If they want to have a vote, that's fine but this time, it really would be just an advisory/indicative one.Indigo said:
Is Foreign Affairs a devolved competence to any of the regional parliaments ?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Jones also said the final “exit deal” should also be subject to votes in all four UK parliaments and assemblies – a position backed by Ms Sturgeon.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
The options will be 'The Negotiated EU deal' or 'No Deal' (aka chaotic Brexit) - I can imagine Sturgeon voting it down, the better to further independence - irrespective of the contents of the deal......why would May want to risk the fortunes of the other 92% of the UK on the whims of a party created to bring about its destruction?0 -
FPT:
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.Sandpit said:
Don't they have huge tax incentives for middle class families in France though? IIRC you said previously that a family with three kids gets our equivalanet of a household personal allowance of €50-60k, below which they don't pay income tax.rcs1000 said:
Not a problem France has, of course.Philip_Thompson said:
Sort of true actually. The declining birth rate in Europe is a major ongoing demographic problem that the US and UK don't suffer from.619 said:
It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)0 -
As long as they can keep the Senate in the hands of the Republicans, Clinton won't be able to stack the Court with liberals. And it'll be easier (and safer) to keep the Senate than win the White House.Indigo said:
Quite. Are republicans that can't stand Trump going to turn out to vote for Republicans down ticket, or stay at home.edmundintokyo said:Down-ballot, on the other hand, is anybody's guess.
Also are they going to decide on the day that the only question that really matters to them is who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, and turn out for Trump at the last minute whilst holding their nose with both hands and gritting their teeth.0 -
How ? They can't realistically veto every name she puts forward for the next four years, there would be a continuous media whine-athon such that they would get eaten alive at the mid-terms.david_herdson said:
As long as they can keep the Senate in the hands of the Republicans, Clinton won't be able to stack the Court with liberals. And it'll be easier (and safer) to keep the Senate than win the White House.Indigo said:
Quite. Are republicans that can't stand Trump going to turn out to vote for Republicans down ticket, or stay at home.edmundintokyo said:Down-ballot, on the other hand, is anybody's guess.
Also are they going to decide on the day that the only question that really matters to them is who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, and turn out for Trump at the last minute whilst holding their nose with both hands and gritting their teeth.0 -
Recent history suggests the GOP headbangers don't really consider what is a realistic play. The trouble is that it hasn't really hurt them either.Indigo said:
How ? They can't realistically veto every name she puts forward for the next four years, there would be a continuous media whine-athon such that they would get eaten alive at the mid-terms.david_herdson said:
As long as they can keep the Senate in the hands of the Republicans, Clinton won't be able to stack the Court with liberals. And it'll be easier (and safer) to keep the Senate than win the White House.Indigo said:
Quite. Are republicans that can't stand Trump going to turn out to vote for Republicans down ticket, or stay at home.edmundintokyo said:Down-ballot, on the other hand, is anybody's guess.
Also are they going to decide on the day that the only question that really matters to them is who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, and turn out for Trump at the last minute whilst holding their nose with both hands and gritting their teeth.0 -
Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html0 -
They can. Or more accurately, they can veto every *change* nominee she puts forward. I think it'd be politically sustainable for them to advance a like-for-like convention, while the Senate and White House are in Cohabitation, to borrow a French phrase: they'll accept a liberal to replace a liberal providing that she nominates a conservative to replace a conservative.Indigo said:
How ? They can't realistically veto every name she puts forward for the next four years, there would be a continuous media whine-athon such that they would get eaten alive at the mid-terms.david_herdson said:
As long as they can keep the Senate in the hands of the Republicans, Clinton won't be able to stack the Court with liberals. And it'll be easier (and safer) to keep the Senate than win the White House.Indigo said:
Quite. Are republicans that can't stand Trump going to turn out to vote for Republicans down ticket, or stay at home.edmundintokyo said:Down-ballot, on the other hand, is anybody's guess.
Also are they going to decide on the day that the only question that really matters to them is who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, and turn out for Trump at the last minute whilst holding their nose with both hands and gritting their teeth.
I agree that there'd be a whinefest if no nominee was ratified for four years but if they could establish the convention in the public mind, then with the right PR, there'd be a good chance that the blame would fall on Hillary for trying to 'rig' the system.0 -
I don't think there's much competence in the handling of foreign affairs!Indigo said:
Is Foreign Affairs a devolved competence to any of the regional parliaments ?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Jones also said the final “exit deal” should also be subject to votes in all four UK parliaments and assemblies – a position backed by Ms Sturgeon.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
The options will be 'The Negotiated EU deal' or 'No Deal' (aka chaotic Brexit) - I can imagine Sturgeon voting it down, the better to further independence - irrespective of the contents of the deal......why would May want to risk the fortunes of the other 92% of the UK on the whims of a party created to bring about its destruction?0 -
Another factor favouring Clinton that Leave did not have is an absolute wave of PAC money. The PACs supporting her will be outspending Trump at least 2:1: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/us/politics/clinton-trump-gop-money.html?_r=1
Indeed, I have read that this is an unusual experiment which might help to ascertain if wall to wall advertising actually works; there is such a discrepancy in some of the swing states that its effectiveness should be apparent (although difficult to distinguish from other factors of course). Probably the best single thing for US democracy to come out of this borderline tragic contest would be a conclusion that these hundreds of millions that so corrupt their system achieve very little.0 -
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html0 -
During a Florida swing Trump says he doesn't believe the polls and he's doing better with women than men, whilst his campaign manager on CNN concedes he's behind :
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-florida-polling-nosedive-2302140 -
The Independent is not a neutral source, but I can tell you for free that the Scottish Government will fall out with any form of Brexit deal Theresa May arranges.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
Guaranteed.0 -
I think that's fair bet: even if Mrs May secured a deal where the EU paid billions for access to the UK market, Mrs Sturgeon would find something to object to.Casino_Royale said:
The Independent is not a neutral source, but I can tell you for free that the Scottish Government will fall out with any form of Brexit deal Theresa May arranges.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
Guaranteed.0 -
She's speaking to the black and liberal constituency not the Fox News demographic.ThreeQuidder said:According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.
0 -
I agree the Devolved governments are in a relatively weak negotiating position. Wales is headed by a Remainer but voted Leave. Northern Ireland voted Remain but is headed by a Leaver. Only Scotland speaks with a unified position and is in a position to credibly call an independence/Border referendum. That doesn't mean they can't rock the boat though depending on what if any buyers remorse voters have or if the negotiations prove suboptimal. What interested me were the optics. May has dated off the JMC and is offering a subcomittee which is an innovation. Talking shops almost certainly but it's worth noting May sees the need for the optics.0
-
It's still nonsense.JackW said:
She's speaking to the black and liberal constituency not the Fox News demographic.ThreeQuidder said:According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.
0 -
The main reason to turn out must be the Presidency, which would answer both your questions.Indigo said:
Quite. Are republicans that can't stand Trump going to turn out to vote for Republicans down ticket, or stay at home.edmundintokyo said:Down-ballot, on the other hand, is anybody's guess.
Also are they going to decide on the day that the only question that really matters to them is who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, and turn out for Trump at the last minute whilst holding their nose with both hands and gritting their teeth.0 -
"TheHill" reports on Obama in Nevada, on Sunday, attempting to close the deal for Clinton as she moves away from Trump in a battleground state that went twice for the President :
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/302436-obama-in-nevada-heck-no-to-trump-joe-heck0 -
'Researchers', surprisingly, were not required to come to this conclusion.....rcs1000 said:
I think that's fair bet: even if Mrs May secured a deal where the EU paid billions for access to the UK market, Mrs Sturgeon would find something to object to.Casino_Royale said:
The Independent is not a neutral source, but I can tell you for free that the Scottish Government will fall out with any form of Brexit deal Theresa May arranges.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
Guaranteed.0 -
The most northern Irish case of the year is back today:
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/7904216848263045120 -
She will also call a vote in the Scottish parliament regardless, which will vote against the deal.rcs1000 said:
I think that's fair bet: even if Mrs May secured a deal where the EU paid billions for access to the UK market, Mrs Sturgeon would find something to object to.Casino_Royale said:
The Independent is not a neutral source, but I can tell you for free that the Scottish Government will fall out with any form of Brexit deal Theresa May arranges.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
Guaranteed.
Anything that builds on the pretext of grievance for a second referendum.0 -
In her much vaunted 'Tour of Europe' Sturgeon's meeting with the German Foreign Minister Junior Minister took place in The German Foreign Office a restaurant.....something the SNP government, unaccountably, didn't publicise.....ydoethur said:
I don't think there's much competence in the handling of foreign affairs!Indigo said:
Is Foreign Affairs a devolved competence to any of the regional parliaments ?CarlottaVance said:
Mr Jones also said the final “exit deal” should also be subject to votes in all four UK parliaments and assemblies – a position backed by Ms Sturgeon.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
The options will be 'The Negotiated EU deal' or 'No Deal' (aka chaotic Brexit) - I can imagine Sturgeon voting it down, the better to further independence - irrespective of the contents of the deal......why would May want to risk the fortunes of the other 92% of the UK on the whims of a party created to bring about its destruction?
0 -
I also agree Sturgeon's prime goal is to stoke division and tension between Scotland and England. As any Brexit deal by definition will not be what 62% of Scots wanted she has fertile territory. But it's entirely fair comment to say May can't possibly satisfy the SNP or Sinn Fein on Brexit. They both exist not to be ever satisfied with anything a Westminster government does.
The political issue is the " imagined communities " concept. The UK redefined it's self via the Leave vote and Scotland defined itsself differently again against the Leave vote. These are very long term processes and political institutions like the union lag even further behind. Nor is the process irreversible. But the figures were stark. Sturgeon has an open goal.0 -
The reason for the optics are explained downthread: Sturgeon is going to try and skewer May, no matter what she does. So May needs to be seen to be fair and consultative along the way, and taking her concerns on board, with evidence she can refer back to later.YellowSubmarine said:I agree the Devolved governments are in a relatively weak negotiating position. Wales is headed by a Remainer but voted Leave. Northern Ireland voted Remain but is headed by a Leaver. Only Scotland speaks with a unified position and is in a position to credibly call an independence/Border referendum. That doesn't mean they can't rock the boat though depending on what if any buyers remorse voters have or if the negotiations prove suboptimal. What interested me were the optics. May has dated off the JMC and is offering a subcomittee which is an innovation. Talking shops almost certainly but it's worth noting May sees the need for the optics.
Expect tactical leaks to the press.0 -
If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.0
-
This article does not mention the most important reason of alL: WWC voters are not the swing voters in most of the key states.0
-
Where did you get the 'Only' from?ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html0 -
Prof Michael McDonald of the University of Florida, in the "Huffington Post", examines early voting trends through to yesterday :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/early-voting-the-election_b_12614284.html?section=us_politics0 -
Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.rcs1000 said:FPT:
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.Sandpit said:
Don't they have huge tax incentives for middle class families in France though? IIRC you said previously that a family with three kids gets our equivalanet of a household personal allowance of €50-60k, below which they don't pay income tax.rcs1000 said:
Not a problem France has, of course.Philip_Thompson said:
Sort of true actually. The declining birth rate in Europe is a major ongoing demographic problem that the US and UK don't suffer from.619 said:
It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)0 -
The Cake case is the authoritarian in persuit of the theologically illiterate as Oscar Wilde might have put it. Though it's prompted an interesting debate on whether Our Lord would have turned Water into Wine at a Gay Wedding. So at least it's added to the gaiety of nations.AlastairMeeks said:The most northern Irish case of the year is back today:
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/7904216848263045120 -
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan.logical_song said:
Where did you get the 'Only' from?ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html
Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.0 -
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
Their actions and rhetoric.logical_song said:
Where did you get the 'Only' from?ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html0 -
Scotland does have a voice in the EU discussions, by virtue of the 59 Parliamentary seats who can discuss reserved issues. Any attempt by Sturgeon and the Scottish Parliament to get involved should be given the reply made famous by Arkell v PressdramCarlottaVance said:
Mr Jones also said the final “exit deal” should also be subject to votes in all four UK parliaments and assemblies – a position backed by Ms Sturgeon.YellowSubmarine said:The Independent: Theresa May facing a ‘constitutional crisis’ if UK nations fall out over Brexit, researchers warn. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw0_2IkDA
The options will be 'The Negotiated EU deal' or 'No Deal' (aka chaotic Brexit) - I can imagine Sturgeon voting it down, the better to further independence - irrespective of the contents of the deal......why would May want to risk the fortunes of the other 92% of the UK on the whims of a party created to bring about its destruction?0 -
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
Is "majoritarianism" a word meaning an "evil version of Democracy"?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
Sorry guys, my daughter wants to go swimming and the 40C clear blue water calls, its tough but someone has to do it, back later
0 -
And the government has said this... when, exactly?AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
I fail to see how you hope to secure a Brexit settlement by consensus. Could you advise us of a process that would achieve a settlement that would still secure Brexit, on the best terms, and in a timely manner?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built.
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.0 -
"No major economy relies on financial services like Britain’s, where the sector provides almost a tenth of GDP, but about 30 per cent of all exports. To give that latter figure some context, the G7’s silver medallist in this discipline is the United States with barely 15 per cent. Any shrinkage in GDP caused by the loss of the banks must affect state spending on such fripperies as the NHS, education and benefits. As the damage done to the capital radiated to the provinces, the fall-out would probably be at its most lethal in the most deprived and determinedly pro-Brexit areas. If the referendum was much more a vote against smug, wealthy London than against a remote and abstract Brussels, a diminished City and the effects of that would offer a peculiarly brutal tutorial about being careful what you wish for."0
-
And would that include Remainers not delighting in the fall of the pound (even if most of their predictions have yet come to pass)?AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
I look forward to constructive engagement from Remainers beyond 'we told you so' and 'the worst is yet to come'.....0 -
Who is angrier, JJ? You or Trump?JosiasJessop said:
I fail to see how you hope to secure a Brexit settlement by consensus. Could you advise us of a process that would achieve a settlement that would still secure Brexit, on the best terms, and in a timely manner?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built.
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.
0 -
"Consensus" is presumably code for "getting what I want, because I am used to it".JosiasJessop said:
I fail to see how you hope to secure a Brexit settlement by consensus. Could you advise us of a process that would achieve a settlement that would still secure Brexit, on the best terms, and in a timely manner?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built.
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.0 -
Judith Miller of MIPR, on Fox News, looks at the spike in women turnout in early voting :
Video - http://video.foxnews.com/v/5182144550001/judith-miller-women-are-responding-to-trump-by-voting-early/?#sp=show-clips0 -
Just for info, Wikileaks are releasing stuff damaging to Donna Brazille today and Hillary videos re dirty tricks.
There was also an email yesterday outlining their strategy to influence polling. DYOR.0 -
Some of the grown up REMAINers have been constructive. Alas there are other lost souls.CarlottaVance said:
And would that include Remainers not delighting in the fall of the pound (even if most of their predictions have yet come to pass)?AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
I look forward to constructive engagement from Remainers beyond 'we told you so' and 'the worst is yet to come'.....0 -
Not that any of these seem to be resonating, but how many election cycles are required for pols and their advisers to realise that emails are not a good way to communicate...PlatoSaid said:Just for info, Wikileaks are releasing stuff damaging to Donna Brazille today and Hillary videos re dirty tricks.
There was also an email yesterday outlining their strategy to influence polling. DYOR.0 -
Agreed.JosiasJessop said:
I fail to see how you hope to secure a Brexit settlement by consensus. Could you advise us of a process that would achieve a settlement that would still secure Brexit, on the best terms, and in a timely manner?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built .
0 -
It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.Sandpit said:
Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.rcs1000 said:FPT:
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.Sandpit said:
Don't they have huge tax incentives for middle class families in France though? IIRC you said previously that a family with three kids gets our equivalanet of a household personal allowance of €50-60k, below which they don't pay income tax.rcs1000 said:
Not a problem France has, of course.Philip_Thompson said:
Sort of true actually. The declining birth rate in Europe is a major ongoing demographic problem that the US and UK don't suffer from.619 said:
It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)0 -
Indeed. (sorry everyone).IanB2 said:"No major economy relies on financial services like Britain’s, where the sector provides almost a tenth of GDP, but about 30 per cent of all exports. To give that latter figure some context, the G7’s silver medallist in this discipline is the United States with barely 15 per cent. Any shrinkage in GDP caused by the loss of the banks must affect state spending on such fripperies as the NHS, education and benefits. As the damage done to the capital radiated to the provinces, the fall-out would probably be at its most lethal in the most deprived and determinedly pro-Brexit areas. If the referendum was much more a vote against smug, wealthy London than against a remote and abstract Brussels, a diminished City and the effects of that would offer a peculiarly brutal tutorial about being careful what you wish for."
But the loss of the banks ad financial institutions is not guaranteed after Brexit. If it's handled badly, yes. However the UK does have some advantages (which is why they're here at the moment), and it may be possible that those advantages offset the loss of EU status. Or we might be able to buy them off, although that may still be at a cost to income.
I doubt these institutions are philosophically pro-EU. They will not, as a whole, be firm believers in the project. The EU may give them certain advantages, but those will be judged on a financial basis, not an ideological one. If we can show them that they will be able to operate more profitably by remaining in the UK, the vast majority will stay.
However: the EU will be eyeing them covetously, and will want to attract them. It's therefore massively important for the government to be flirting with them immediately. Although I'm not sure I want to see pictures of May, Hammond, Fox, Boris or Davis revealing a bit of ankle and fluttering their eyelashes. Best to keep it behind closed doors ...
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.0 -
The majority can choose to press ahead with their unconsensual approach if they so wish. My original point stands: such an approach causes a problem of legitimacy in areas that voted Remain. Getting angry about that will not improve matters either.0
-
I wholeheartedly agree that the language being used is at times quite vile and unworthy of otherwise charming and intelligent posters. There really is no need tor all this "Remoaners", "traitors" nonsense nor saying that Leavers have the intelligence of amoebas, as someone did recently, or that they are idiots. It is increasingly making many threads unreadable.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
The decision on how to vote was a finely balanced one for many people. People of intelligence and goodwill voted, based on what was important to them and probably, many of them, with a heavy heart and no great enthusiasm. Just because someone voted differently does not make them evil nor does it mean that they are forbidden from ever commenting on the subject again or to blame for everything that happens.
Legitimate disagreement without ad hominem insults is - or should be - the lifeblood of democracy and a civilised society. It might be good if we all remembered that.0 -
What on Earth makes you think I'm angry?Innocent_Abroad said:
Who is angrier, JJ? You or Trump?JosiasJessop said:
I fail to see how you hope to secure a Brexit settlement by consensus. Could you advise us of a process that would achieve a settlement that would still secure Brexit, on the best terms, and in a timely manner?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built.
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.0 -
Yes - I too was a Remainer - and there are plenty of other Remainers who accept the result and just wish we could sort out the best deal for the UK rather than delighting in every stray economic 'portent of doom'......Mr Meeks strikes me as a clever chap - I'm sure he has more to contribute than 'told you so' and 'who's sorry now'? (on the skimpiest of evidence...0TCPoliticalBetting said:
Some of the grown up REMAINers have been constructive. Alas there are other lost souls.CarlottaVance said:
And would that include Remainers not delighting in the fall of the pound (even if most of their predictions have yet come to pass)?AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
I look forward to constructive engagement from Remainers beyond 'we told you so' and 'the worst is yet to come'.....0 -
JJ is surely right that we want a settlement that works for as many people as possible, irrespective of whether they voted Leave or Remain.Mortimer said:
"Consensus" is presumably code for "getting what I want, because I am used to it".JosiasJessop said:
I fail to see how you hope to secure a Brexit settlement by consensus. Could you advise us of a process that would achieve a settlement that would still secure Brexit, on the best terms, and in a timely manner?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built.
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.0 -
Absolutely - I should have responded to Alastair's comment but this seemed a better postrcs1000 said:
JJ is surely right that we want a settlement that works for as many people as possible, irrespective of whether they voted Leave or Remain.Mortimer said:
"Consensus" is presumably code for "getting what I want, because I am used to it".JosiasJessop said:
I fail to see how you hope to secure a Brexit settlement by consensus. Could you advise us of a process that would achieve a settlement that would still secure Brexit, on the best terms, and in a timely manner?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built.
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.
0 -
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
Do the French socialists rail against these tax allowances? I can't imagine how much wailing there would be from Labour if such things were proposed here...rcs1000 said:
It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.Sandpit said:
Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.rcs1000 said:FPT:
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.Sandpit said:
Don't they have huge tax incentives for middle class families in France though? IIRC you said previously that a family with three kids gets our equivalanet of a household personal allowance of €50-60k, below which they don't pay income tax.rcs1000 said:
Not a problem France has, of course.Philip_Thompson said:
Sort of true actually. The declining birth rate in Europe is a major ongoing demographic problem that the US and UK don't suffer from.619 said:
It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)0 -
The will of just over half the public (who are still waiting for the promised £350m/week to the NHS).JonnyJimmy said:
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
Latest Fox News Projection :
Clinton 307 .. Trump 181 .. Toss-Up 50
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-race0 -
You've added a non existent only there.ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html0 -
I have never called for a rerun. Indeed, were there to be a rerun I would abstain. While I detest what Leave stands for, Britain is for now incapable of making a positive contribution to the EU. We need first to let the stupidity take its course, mitigating the malevolence, then rebuild from there.JonnyJimmy said:
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.GeoffM said:
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan.logical_song said:
Where did you get the 'Only' from?ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html
Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.0 -
Tbh, if the media weren't covering alleged Trump sex stuff at a ratio of 24:1 compared to the emails - they may matter rather more.Mortimer said:
Not that any of these seem to be resonating, but how many election cycles are required for pols and their advisers to realise that emails are not a good way to communicate...PlatoSaid said:Just for info, Wikileaks are releasing stuff damaging to Donna Brazille today and Hillary videos re dirty tricks.
There was also an email yesterday outlining their strategy to influence polling. DYOR.
It's akin to all the papers here ignoring MPs expenses. Two very senior DNC directors have been forced out so far another couple have been arrested for assault at rallies where they deliberately tried to incite violence.
I feel this is just boiling away trust in media as word spreads despite the MSM. Fox are now covering it and embarrassing others to at least nod to it.0 -
Constructive engagement from those of us who voted Remain is impossible when there is nothing to engage with from government. The dithering and disagreement at the heart of government fosters disagreement from the country at large.CarlottaVance said:
And would that include Remainers not delighting in the fall of the pound (even if most of their predictions have yet come to pass)?AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
I look forward to constructive engagement from Remainers beyond 'we told you so' and 'the worst is yet to come'.....
We are 4 months on but no wiser as to what "Brexit means Brexit" means.0 -
They will be if they shift in large enough (but undetected) numbers.not_on_fire said:This article does not mention the most important reason of alL: WWC voters are not the swing voters in most of the key states.
0 -
You could turn the gun on yourself. Let your stupidity take its course, mitigating your malevolence, then, in time, move on.AlastairMeeks said:
I have never called for a rerun. Indeed, were there to be a rerun I would abstain. While I detest what Leave stands for, Britain is for now incapable of making a positive contribution to the EU. We need first to let the stupidity take its course, mitigating the malevolence, then rebuild from there.JonnyJimmy said:
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
"I have never called for a rerun", I presume this means by omission that you are attempting to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will. You said this shouldn't be done; other than the tricolores bit my post was a quote of one of yours.AlastairMeeks said:
I have never called for a rerun. Indeed, were there to be a rerun I would abstain. While I detest what Leave stands for, Britain is for now incapable of making a positive contribution to the EU. We need first to let the stupidity take its course, mitigating the malevolence, then rebuild from there.JonnyJimmy said:
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
Which is why I support and am planning for Hard Brexit. The British body politic has to get this out of the system before there can be a more positive relationship with Europe.AlastairMeeks said:
I have never called for a rerun. Indeed, were there to be a rerun I would abstain. While I detest what Leave stands for, Britain is for now incapable of making a positive contribution to the EU. We need first to let the stupidity take its course, mitigating the malevolence, then rebuild from there.JonnyJimmy said:
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
It sounds like a very sensible system to me.Mortimer said:
Do the French socialists rail against these tax allowances? I can't imagine how much wailing there would be from Labour if such things were proposed here...rcs1000 said:
It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.Sandpit said:
Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.rcs1000 said:FPT:
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.Sandpit said:
Don't they have huge tax incentives for middle class families in France though? IIRC you said previously that a family with three kids gets our equivalanet of a household personal allowance of €50-60k, below which they don't pay income tax.rcs1000 said:
Not a problem France has, of course.Philip_Thompson said:
Sort of true actually. The declining birth rate in Europe is a major ongoing demographic problem that the US and UK don't suffer from.619 said:
It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)
0 -
No, I think the stupidity should take its course. I have been very clear that in my view Brexit has to include controls on freedom of movement because that is what the referendum was won with.JonnyJimmy said:
"I have never called for a rerun", I presume this means by omission that you are attempting to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will. You said this shouldn't be done; other than the tricolores bit my post was a quote of one of yours.AlastairMeeks said:
I have never called for a rerun. Indeed, were there to be a rerun I would abstain. While I detest what Leave stands for, Britain is for now incapable of making a positive contribution to the EU. We need first to let the stupidity take its course, mitigating the malevolence, then rebuild from there.JonnyJimmy said:
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
As it happens, I doubt that the negotiations are finessable. Theresa May is embarking on what is probably a fool's errand.0 -
No, I've made explicit the implicit.Alistair said:
You've added a non existent only there.ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html0 -
Error. My apologies.JosiasJessop said:
What on Earth makes you think I'm angry?Innocent_Abroad said:
Who is angrier, JJ? You or Trump?JosiasJessop said:
I fail to see how you hope to secure a Brexit settlement by consensus. Could you advise us of a process that would achieve a settlement that would still secure Brexit, on the best terms, and in a timely manner?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built.
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.
0 -
If you're looking for malevolence I suggest you try a mirror.....AlastairMeeks said:
We need first to let the stupidity take its course, mitigating the malevolence.JonnyJimmy said:
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
0 -
That would be my slogan. But it isn't theirs, as the resistance to "All Lives Matter" proves.Alistair said:
If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.GeoffM said:
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan.logical_song said:
Where did you get the 'Only' from?ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html
Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.0 -
There are some attractive features to such a system, and it does show how many different systems are possible within the EU in respect of tax and benefits.Sean_F said:
It sounds like a very sensible system to me.Mortimer said:
Do the French socialists rail against these tax allowances? I can't imagine how much wailing there would be from Labour if such things were proposed here...rcs1000 said:
It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.Sandpit said:
Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.rcs1000 said:FPT:
In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.Sandpit said:
Don't they have huge tax incentives for middle class families in France though? IIRC you said previously that a family with three kids gets our equivalanet of a household personal allowance of €50-60k, below which they don't pay income tax.rcs1000 said:
Not a problem France has, of course.Philip_Thompson said:
Sort of true actually. The declining birth rate in Europe is a major ongoing demographic problem that the US and UK don't suffer from.619 said:
It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)
However, it does not seem to have stopped low skilled migration to France, both from EU and non-EU countries.
0 -
Then propose something.foxinsoxuk said:
Constructive engagement from those of us who voted Remain is impossible when there is nothing to engage with from government.CarlottaVance said:
And would that include Remainers not delighting in the fall of the pound (even if most of their predictions have yet come to pass)?AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
I look forward to constructive engagement from Remainers beyond 'we told you so' and 'the worst is yet to come'.....
Why are you only allowed to react to what the government says?
While I know most on here are decades past their teenage years, a lot of the Remoaner(*) posting comes across as a teenage strop.....
(*) Remoaner - supporter of Remain having great difficulty adjusting to the outcome of the referendum. Can make Scot Nats appear witty and light hearted by comparison.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Because it's an election not a referendum, with another electorate, in another country?
F1: entertaining race. Mildly miffed at the VSC's timing which screwed over Ricciardo. He might've got 2nd but for that. Flat overall in betting terms.
Anyway, I'll set about rambling on the subject shortly.0 -
Out of interest, you've made clear you are no admirer of EU institutions, even though you regard voting Remain as the lesser evil. Do you think there was ever a chance of reforming the institutions in a way that addresses peoples' concerns in the UK (eg an end to mission creep, return of some competences to national legislatures?)AlastairMeeks said:
No, I think the stupidity should take its course. I have been very clear that in my view Brexit has to include controls on freedom of movement because that is what the referendum was won with.JonnyJimmy said:
"I have never called for a rerun", I presume this means by omission that you are attempting to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will. You said this shouldn't be done; other than the tricolores bit my post was a quote of one of yours.AlastairMeeks said:
I have never called for a rerun. Indeed, were there to be a rerun I would abstain. While I detest what Leave stands for, Britain is for now incapable of making a positive contribution to the EU. We need first to let the stupidity take its course, mitigating the malevolence, then rebuild from there.JonnyJimmy said:
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
As it happens, I doubt that the negotiations are finessable. Theresa May is embarking on what is probably a fool's errand.0 -
No, it's a focusing statement. The problem is not that all unarmed people are being disproportionally shot and killed by police. Black people are. Here is a handy pictographic representation about all live matterThreeQuidder said:
That would be my slogan. But it isn't theirs, as the resistance to "All Lives Matter" proves.Alistair said:
If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.GeoffM said:
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan.logical_song said:
Where did you get the 'Only' from?ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html
Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.
0 -
OK. I propose an off-the-shelf EEA or EFTA solution (Norway or Liechtenstein arrangement).CarlottaVance said:
Then propose something.foxinsoxuk said:
Constructive engagement from those of us who voted Remain is impossible when there is nothing to engage with from government.CarlottaVance said:
And would that include Remainers not delighting in the fall of the pound (even if most of their predictions have yet come to pass)?AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
I look forward to constructive engagement from Remainers beyond 'we told you so' and 'the worst is yet to come'.....
Why are you only allowed to react to what the government says?
While I know most on here are decades past their teenage years, a lot of the Remoaner(*) posting comes across as a teenage strop.....
(*) Remoaner - supporter of Remain having great difficulty adjusting to the outcome of the referendum. Can make Scot Nats appear witty and light hearted by comparison.
The Euro-Canada farce shows that a bespoke arrangement cannot be negotiated in a reasonable time span.
0 -
Only three teams had ever needed 40 runs or less with two wickets in hand to win a test match and the bowling side won on each occasion. This was the fourth time today.
Consult the replay of TMS in full for todays play for the details.0 -
What percentage of such cases have proved to have the police at fault?Alistair said:
No, it's a focusing statement. The problem is not that all unarmed people are being disproportionally shot and killed by police. Black people are.ThreeQuidder said:
That would be my slogan. But it isn't theirs, as the resistance to "All Lives Matter" proves.Alistair said:
If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.GeoffM said:
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan.logical_song said:
Where did you get the 'Only' from?ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html
Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.0 -
I would have more sympathy with BLM (and there certainly are shocking incidents involving US police) if they campaigned against the killers of mostly young black men in the gangs (both in US and UK). Mark Duggan's cousin was killed by another gang, where were the protests then? Ditto the open gang warfare in Chicago at present. Rather like "Stop the War", the protests are only in one direction.ThreeQuidder said:
That would be my slogan. But it isn't theirs, as the resistance to "All Lives Matter" proves.Alistair said:
If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.GeoffM said:
The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan.logical_song said:
Where did you get the 'Only' from?ThreeQuidder said:
According to that she's said that the Only Black Lives Matter campaign has been "very constructive". Jesus wept.JackW said:Chris Megarian of the "LA Times" on the Clinton drive to boost black turnout in North Carolina :
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html
Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.0 -
A chance, in time, with patience and constructively building alliances, if it could construct a positive agenda. But Britain's problem, both inside and outside the EU, was that it didn't know what it wanted. It knew what it didn't want, but that's a very different thing.Sean_F said:
Out of interest, you've made clear you are no admirer of EU institutions, even though you regard voting Remain as the lesser evil. Do you think there was ever a chance of reforming the institutions in a way that addresses peoples' concerns in the UK (eg an end to mission creep, return of some competences to national legislatures?)AlastairMeeks said:
No, I think the stupidity should take its course. I have been very clear that in my view Brexit has to include controls on freedom of movement because that is what the referendum was won with.JonnyJimmy said:
"I have never called for a rerun", I presume this means by omission that you are attempting to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will. You said this shouldn't be done; other than the tricolores bit my post was a quote of one of yours.AlastairMeeks said:
I have never called for a rerun. Indeed, were there to be a rerun I would abstain. While I detest what Leave stands for, Britain is for now incapable of making a positive contribution to the EU. We need first to let the stupidity take its course, mitigating the malevolence, then rebuild from there.JonnyJimmy said:
You've already shown your tricolores by calling the other side malevolent cretins. I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.AlastairMeeks said:
Something that didn't tell Remainers to "suck it up, losers" and call them traitors whenever they point out likely consequences of particular forms of Brexit.CarlottaVance said:
And what would one of those look like?AlastairMeeks said:If the British government had given even the slightest nod that it was intending to secure a Brexit settlement that was to be built by consensus rather than majoritarianism, perhaps the problem of legitimacy in areas that voted to Remain would not arise.
As it happens, I doubt that the negotiations are finessable. Theresa May is embarking on what is probably a fool's errand.0 -
Our relationship with Europe has always foundered on trust, or lack of it. There are 28, or 27 now, countries who are in it for their own benefit.
It helps if you can gang up against the others. It's not a grouping that can ever be stable unless you make Europe one country with a common goal. That's why the founders saw the necessity to federalise. But because that is unpopular, they soft-pedalled it (lied or dissembled).
That's where we are now. As the Scottish play says "Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er." The electorate are dragging their feet over the next step - complete union.
Honesty would be nice but it dare not speak its name.
0
