politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why you shouldn’t rely on the BREXIT experience as a pointer t

JennyFreeman said:

Great to see these US election threads appearing.

It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

Trump does still have slender leads in some national opinion polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.

YellowSubmarine said:

On a conciliatory note four months to the date after the result I do think europhiles have to let events run their course for a bit. We much to do to put our new house in order. We have go grieve, we have to adjust to a form of internal exile, we have to adjust to counter cultural status, we have to embrace creative minority status and we have to face up to why we lost. Certainly what ever happens they'll be no return to the status quo ante. Now u turning and staying in would be a completely different experience for Britain than having voted to Remain.

We've also got years of this to come. On the losest definitions of Brexit over a decade. The 2020 and 2025 parliamentary will be dominated by what if any of the Acquis to keep after it's been kept in UK law by the Great Repeal Act. The successor FTA will probably be concluded then need ratifying in the 2020 parliament. Then the bilateral new FTAs have the capacity to become majors battles. The battle between keeping eurosphere standards, in which case why did we bother versus globalists and deregulated. That will throw up very strange alliances.

So on the conciliatory note we all need to calm down. Not that there is anything to be calm about. There is nothing to calm about. It's just it's psychologically and psychologically impossible to stay in Fight or Flight mode for ever. You go mad or collapse if you do. Or both.

As I'm being conciliatory I'll leave the other reason to let events take their course, to prepare the counter strike, for another time.

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

619 said:

https://twitter.com/wpjenna/status/790319772261052416

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.

Not a problem France has, of course.

It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.

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.

In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.

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.)

Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.

It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.

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...

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/790450534893359104

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."

ToryJim said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/790450534893359104

Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.

Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.

MonikerDiCanio said:

logical_song said:

PlatoSaid said:

JennyFreeman said:

Great to see these US election threads appearing.

It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

Trump does still have slender leads in some national opinion polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.

The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.

I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President.
Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.

rcs1000 said:

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:


In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.

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.)

Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.

It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.

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...

Of course not! In France, that is the way things have always been done.

As an aside, I was reading about benefits in Germany (here: http://www.expatica.com/de/about/Guide-to-German-social-security_100923.html) and it would appear that you need to have contributed to the various social security schemes for a year before you are eligible for any benefits. Why we have a different system astonishes me.

ThreeQuidder said:

Alistair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Alistair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Alistair said:

GeoffM said:

The SJWs don't like the alternative 'All Lives Matter' slogan.
Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.

If you want to add or change words to the slogan it would be Black Lives Matter As Well.

That would be my slogan. But it isn't theirs, as the resistance to "All Lives Matter" proves.

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.

What percentage of such cases have proved to have the police at fault?

Close to zero percent

Indeed.

another_richard said:

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."

And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???

This is from the latest ONS Pink Book

2015 Exports
Financial Services £50.769bn
Total Services £225.485bn
Total Exports £510.340bn

Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.

You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.

But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/3tradeinservicesthepinkbook2016

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:


In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.

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.)

Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.

It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.

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...

Of course not! In France, that is the way things have always been done.

As an aside, I was reading about benefits in Germany (here: http://www.expatica.com/de/about/Guide-to-German-social-security_100923.html) and it would appear that you need to have contributed to the various social security schemes for a year before you are eligible for any benefits. Why we have a different system astonishes me.

There's lots in this book about where things went wrong:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Victory-British-Realities-1945-50/dp/0333480457/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477295825&sr=1-1&keywords=the+lost+victory

"An almost irresistible indictments of post-war thinking delivered with Barnett''s customary panache and argumentative power." Martin Kettle, Guardian

"The most compelling and convincing indictment of the Attlee Government we are ever likely to see." The Times

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

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

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.

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?

Is Foreign Affairs a devolved competence to any of the regional parliaments ?

I don't think there's much competence in the handling of foreign affairs!

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.....

Theuniondivvie said:

JennyFreeman said:

Great to see these US election threads appearing.

It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final ike Brexit.

Or to put it another way, the dozen polls in the week before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave leading in nine of them, in the dozen before the 23rd, Remain led in nine of them. That suggests that Cox's murder by a 'madman' almost certainly had a shy Leave effect.

If you want to equate the effect of a single, ghastly act to sustained months of campaigning by a ghastly candidate..

Theuniondivvie said:

JennyFreeman said:

Great to see these US election threads appearing.

It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2%

Trump does still have slender leads in some national opinion polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.

Or to put it another way, the dozen polls in the week before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave leading in nine of them, in the dozen before the 23rd, Remain led in nine of them. That suggests that Cox's murder by a 'madman' almost certainly had a shy Leave effect.

If you want to equate the effect of a single, ghastly act to sustained months of campaigning by a ghastly candidate..

Theuniondivvie said:

JennyFreeman said:

Great to see these US election threads appearing.

It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads

Trump does still have slender leads in some national opinion polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.

Or to put it another way, the dozen polls in the week before Jo Cox's murder showed Leave leading in nine of them, in the dozen before the 23rd, Remain led in nine of them. That suggests that Cox's murder by a 'madman' almost certainly had a shy Leave effect.

If you want to equate the effect of a single, ghastly act to sustained months of campaigning by a ghastly candidate..

YellowSubmarine said:

The other issue leading to *unfocused* anger from europhiles is the vacuum. May has given us to bits of clear information ( ECA repeal and the end to FoM. ) and two bits we can reasonably infer from other stuff. ( That we are leaving the Customs Union and Membership of the SM. ) So at the moment all we have to oppose is leaving which is currently useless. The result was what it was. When the government finally gets round to deciding what it means things will be far more focused. Traditional campaigning focused on policy outcomes will resume. In addition the Leave/Remain badges will start to blur. At the grey area edges many Remain voters won't object to chunks of Brexit. Many Leave voters will be horrified by specifics. The situation will allow churn of voters and coalitions. While this will be disorientating in it's self it will at least break down the binary nature of the debate.

MonikerDiCanio said:

logical_song said:

PlatoSaid said:

JennyFreeman said:

Great to see these US election threads appearing.

It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

Trump does still have slender leads in some national opinion polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.

The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.

I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President.
Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

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."

And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???

This is from the latest ONS Pink Book

2015 Exports
Financial Services £50.769bn
Total Services £225.485bn
Total Exports £510.340bn

Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.

You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.

But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/3tradeinservicesthepinkbook2016

The data we really need is the Gross Value Added export data (which I'm sure is around somewhere, but I don't have it to hand). This basically looks only at that portion of our exports that is value added in the UK. So, to give an example, the UK currently imports gas from Norway, and re-exports it to Ireland. Recognising the whole transaction swells the export and import numbers. Looking at GVA, we'd just capture the fee we get from the Irish for bringing them Norwegian gas.

A slightly less extreme example is automotive. We export a large portion of the cars we build in the UK. But the GVA, if I remember correctly, is only in the high 30s. 60% of the cost of a car is imported: gearbox, tyres, etc.

For financial services (and indeed services generally) GVA is close to 100%. When you sell banking services, you don't need to import something first.

JosiasJessop said:

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 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?

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.

YellowSubmarine said:

ToryJim said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/790450534893359104

Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.

Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.

That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.

619 said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Pong said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

logical_song said:

PlatoSaid said:

JennyFreeman said:

Great to see these US election threads appearing.

It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

Trump does still have slender leads in some national opinion polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.

The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.

I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President.
Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.

Why?

His recent form has been very good.

From the horse's mouth ;
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
Silver's all at sea.

He admits his problem was he ignored the polling and went with his own feelings. The opposite seems to be true here, were those thinking ( Hoping???) for a Trump win are ignoring the polling...

rcs1000 said:

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

619 said:

https://twitter.com/wpjenna/status/790319772261052416

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.

Not a problem France has, of course.

It's the only country in the world where college educated women have above average birth rates.

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.

In France, all allowances 'stack'. So, every family member comes with their own income tax thresholds.

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.)

Very useful, thanks. Puts the recent UK discussion about a small married tax allowance into context.

It does. It also means that France is not as high tax, for most people, as we tend to imagine.

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...

Of course not! In France, that is the way things have always been done.

As an aside, I was reading about benefits in Germany (here: http://www.expatica.com/de/about/Guide-to-German-social-security_100923.html) and it would appear that you need to have contributed to the various social security schemes for a year before you are eligible for any benefits. Why we have a different system astonishes me.

YellowSubmarine said:

At the grey area edges many Remain voters won't object to chunks of Brexit. Many Leave voters will be horrified by specifics.

Essexit said:

YellowSubmarine said:

ToryJim said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/790450534893359104

Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.

Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.

That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.

£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.

£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.

JackW said:

National Panel Tracker - LA Times - Samples 3,024 - 24 Oct

Clinton 43.8 .. Trump 45.1

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

logical_song said:

619 said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Pong said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

logical_song said:

PlatoSaid said:

JennyFreeman said:

Great to see these US election threads appearing.

It's true that the polling doesn't look so good for Trump. In the final 10 days of campaigning after Jo Cox's murder there were 12 published opinion polls. Remain led in 9 of them. Of the three which gave Leave leads they were all in 1-2% range unlike the nearly 4% of the final result. Remain led by a whopping 10% in the final Populus poll with it's 4000 people sample. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

Trump does still have slender leads in some national opinion polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In fact those poll comparisons do look an awful lot like Brexit.

The tracking polling have much smaller margins between the two.

I believe and hope that you two are whistling in the dark. Trump would be a dangerous President.
Nate Silver who has a good track record and takes a scientific approach to the polls show Hillary with a 6.4% lead and a 86% chance of becoming President.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Nate Silver HAD a good track record. He reminds us that " it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it ". I'd bet against him on recent form.

Why?

His recent form has been very good.

From the horse's mouth ;
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
Silver's all at sea.

He admits his problem was he ignored the polling and went with his own feelings. The opposite seems to be true here, were those thinking ( Hoping???) for a Trump win are ignoring the polling...

I do hope that they are betting on their preferred result. If logical argument can't convince them then maybe losing a few quid would.

JackW said:

National Panel Tracker - LA Times - Samples 3,024 - 24 Oct

Clinton 43.8 .. Trump 45.1

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

MonikerDiCanio said:

JackW said:

National Panel Tracker - LA Times - Samples 3,024 - 24 Oct

Clinton 43.8 .. Trump 45.1

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

Shiver.

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

JackW said:

National Panel Tracker - LA Times - Samples 3,024 - 24 Oct

Clinton 43.8 .. Trump 45.1

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

I think you have those the wrong way round.

Finally their black respondent has seen sense.

another_richard said:

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

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."

And where does the 'financial services being 30% of all exports' come from ???

This is from the latest ONS Pink Book

2015 Exports
Financial Services £50.769bn
Total Services £225.485bn
Total Exports £510.340bn

Which makes financial services less than 10% of UK exports in 2015.

You could add Insurance & Pension Services, which were £12.907bn in 2015, to Financial Services.

But that still only gives about 12% of total UK exports.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/3tradeinservicesthepinkbook2016

Cross-checking with the world bank statistics, it looks like the percentages in the quote (which comes from today's Independent) are percentages of services exports rather than total exports (the 2015 world bank figure for the U.K. being 28% with the US on 16%).

Given that our services exports are probably also at the upper end of the range, the qualitative point being made - that the UK is far more reliant upon financial service exports than any other economy - is clearly right, even if the absolute levels given are too high.

Only a fool would deny the contribution Financial Services makes to the UK economy but there are certainly vested interests who attempt to make it appear more important than it is (and the same can be said about many other things than Financial Services).

logical_song said:

Essexit said:

YellowSubmarine said:

ToryJim said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/790450534893359104

Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.

Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.

That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.

£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.

£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.

£350million per week was never available to go to the NHS, it was a deliberate cynical lie.
Each household has already lost some money, every time they fill up the car or buy foreign holiday money. Pretty soon the fall in the pound and rise in transport costs will affect the price of pretty much everything.

Essexit said:

£4,300/household wasn't based on the impact of a short-term fall in the currency, it was based on the economy growing much more slowly post-Brexit. Now, you may believe that will be the case, but the model used to reach that figure was awful beyond belief.

Essexit said:

YellowSubmarine said:

ToryJim said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/790450534893359104

Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.

Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.

That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.

£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.

£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.

ToryJim said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/790450534893359104

Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.

Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.

Essexit said:

logical_song said:

Essexit said:

YellowSubmarine said:

ToryJim said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/790450534893359104

Well Wes Streeting is being remarkably dense. Last I checked we don't have a Vote Leave government but a Conservative one. Chancellor should tell him to eff off.

Of course the real issue was that the referendum campaigns weren't referendum campaigns but were fought essentially in the same way as a general election which was deeply frustrating.

That's right. But a lie of the sheer scale and mendacity of the " £350m pw for the NHS " doesn't end with the referendum. If that sort of thing becomes accepted it effects every subsequent campaign. Not only will there not be £350m pw extra for the NHS the structural problems with the NHS budget will be at best unaffected by EU withdrawal. So counter populism reminding people continually of the £350m lie has uses far removed from referendum recriminations. It's about reestablishing normal parameters for political debate.

£4,300 per household was worse. A figure cooked up by assuming worst-case Brexit and best-case Remain, using the wrong number of households in 2030, and conflating GDP with household income. All presented by Osborne as some kind of impartial Treasury analysis and repeated as fact by BSE.

£350m on the other hand was the most generous interpretation of what we give the EU (or rather, lose control over) each week. Which is not to say it's the figure we should have used, just that it had some basis in fact.

£350million per week was never available to go to the NHS, it was a deliberate cynical lie.
Each household has already lost some money, every time they fill up the car or buy foreign holiday money. Pretty soon the fall in the pound and rise in transport costs will affect the price of pretty much everything.

Right, we shouldn't have included the rebate, and should have talked more in terms of the net figure as being available for the NHS. The specific suggestion was actually £100m/week should be spent out of the net contribution.

£4,300/household wasn't based on the impact of a short-term fall in the currency, it was based on the economy growing much more slowly post-Brexit. Now, you may believe that will be the case, but the model used to reach that figure was awful beyond belief.

MonikerDiCanio said:

Anorak said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

JackW said:

National Panel Tracker - LA Times - Samples 3,024 - 24 Oct

Clinton 43.8 .. Trump 45.1

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

I think you have those the wrong way round.

Finally their black respondent has seen sense.

EUDivvie our expert on black American sentiment. Lolz.

Oh dear. I think you've embarrassed yourself now.

Anorak, another expert. You bet.