politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At some stage some of the “will Trump survive” bets will be va

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@AlbertoNardelli: 11 years in office, 1 million refugees later, and still more popular than Theresa May and pretty much every elected leader in Europe

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/817135533675646976

so who does she team up with ?

she screwed up the coalition last time

Dave will quite happily give her advice on forming a successful coalition and how to play the black widow

Looking in more detail at those figures the AfD is now Germany's third largest party on 15 %

Given german polls consistently underreport AfD support, the question is will they overtake the SPD which is now down to 20% ?

It's an interesting question: why does the AfD seem to consistently beat its poll scores in actual elections, while the FN consistently falls short?

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@AlbertoNardelli: 11 years in office, 1 million refugees later, and still more popular than Theresa May and pretty much every elected leader in Europe

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/817135533675646976

so who does she team up with ?

she screwed up the coalition last time

Dave will quite happily give her advice on forming a successful coalition and how to play the black widow

Looking in more detail at those figures the AfD is now Germany's third largest party on 15 %

Given german polls consistently underreport AfD support, the question is will they overtake the SPD which is now down to 20% ?

It's an interesting question: why does the AfD seem to consistently beat its poll scores in actual elections, while the FN consistently falls short?

Shy Nazis?

Mr. 1000, cheers.

On FN/AfD, maybe it's related to the acceptability of supporting a party. Particularly given Germany's still fixated on the shadow of WWII.

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@AlbertoNardelli: 11 years in office, 1 million refugees later, and still more popular than Theresa May and pretty much every elected leader in Europe

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/817135533675646976

so who does she team up with ?

she screwed up the coalition last time

Dave will quite happily give her advice on forming a successful coalition and how to play the black widow

Looking in more detail at those figures the AfD is now Germany's third largest party on 15 %

Given german polls consistently underreport AfD support, the question is will they overtake the SPD which is now down to 20% ?

It's an interesting question: why does the AfD seem to consistently beat its poll scores in actual elections, while the FN consistently falls short?

I'm guessing it's a combination of

- AfD still has the vilification factor being founded more recently than FN so there is a higher "shy" AfD factor ( FN has been around for 40 years )
- culturally the french don't mind being in your face so "overt" FN is overstated

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.

You do know we haven't left yet, right?

You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.

You do know we haven't left yet, right?

Do you think all those "experts" saying you are Michael Fish have forgotten that we haven't left?

Crikey what an oversight!

Alanbrooke said:

Scott_P said:

For fans of Hard Brexit...

https://twitter.com/theeconomist/status/817308103259590656

And Lo there came a voice from the wilderness, and he claimed to be a pretty straight kinda guy

Bliar !

Alanbrooke said:

You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?

...after we triggered Article 50, right?

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/817319418652979200

Who's the 1% (c. 16 people) who could vote Tory but think Corbyn would be a better PM than May?

Charlotte Church type celebs ;-)

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

isam said:

The old mans comparing him to Mark Duggan... I'm sure plenty would agree

ps://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/817312117535756288

The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.

I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.

Villains lives matter?

But, yes I agree it could be a slippery slope. I wonder why they thought they had to kill him?

Alanbrooke said:

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.

You do know we haven't left yet, right?

You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?

1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote.
2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote.
3. Vote to Leave.
4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism).
5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.

Immaculate management IMO.

Scott_P said:

Alanbrooke said:

You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?

...after we triggered Article 50, right?

.......because Dave wasnt going to resign and George would still be there, right ?

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

isam said:

The old mans comparing him to Mark Duggan... I'm sure plenty would agree

ps://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/817312117535756288

The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.

I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.

Poor John Stalker.

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

If you think Trump will fall or be primaried in 2020 then the real value must be in spotting who you think the Rep nom will be.

My thinking in that situation is it has to be a never Trumper.

I backed Mike Pence before November, I'm content with my position.

I think if, in the scenario of Trump falling, it will be in a spectacular ball of flames that would preclude the VP being a viable candidate for 2020.

He'd be the incumbent for starters which what made it an attractive bet for me.

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.

You do know we haven't left yet, right?

As you well know the claim was not about some date in future when we leave.

Either your being very dense .... or there is some other explanation for your rather important oversight.

What could it be?????

isam said:

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.

You do know we haven't left yet, right?

Do you think all those "experts" saying you are Michael Fish have forgotten that we haven't left?

Crikey what an oversight!

The 'Michael Fish' thing refers to the financial crash of 2008 and the prognostications (or lack of) surrounding it. I know we're all supposed to 'bored' with Brexit now, but as the post-Brexit solution hasn't even been specified yet, let alone agreed upon, I think it's fair enough not to declare closure on it quite yet.

JonnyJimmy said:

I'm surprised one of the remainframers hasn't rushed this out

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38523368

"Access to single market 'not on sale'" says Jonathan Faull..

I don't buy it.

Floater said:

As you well know the claim was not about some date in future when we leave.

It was based on us having begun the process of leaving, which, as you know, we haven't done...

Floater said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/817310057541103617

14% still seems high to me.............

And when push comes to shove, those 39% don't knows after Corbyn has a disastrous election campaign will mostly fall to May.....

It's all going a bit Judean People's Front vs The People's Front of Judea

Al-Qaeda leader blasts rival jihadist group ISIS as 'liars'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4093204/Al-Qaeda-chief-denounces-Islamic-State-liars.html

Floater said:

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.

You do know we haven't left yet, right?

As you well know the claim was not about some date in future when we leave.

Either your being very dense .... or there is some other explanation for your rather important oversight.

What could it be?????

It could be Osborne was forecasting Armageddon in the full knowledge he was such a shit CoE

with him gone, confidence has reurned to the nation's businesses and consumers and we are heading to the oft promised sunny uplands

just saying :-)

Theuniondivvie said:

Patrick said:

Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.

Have you a link to the proposition that Sealion delayed Barbarossa? Not read anything like that myself. Since Sealion 'cost' nothing in terms of landforces & related materiel, and afaicr the Luftwaffe was actually larger by the beginning of 1941 than it was at the start of the BoB, I find it hard to believe.

That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.

For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.

Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.

Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.

You do know we haven't left yet, right?

You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?

1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote.
2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote.
3. Vote to Leave.
4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism).
5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.

Immaculate management IMO.

or alternatively, as their own man has said their forecasting team called the whole thing wrong and really there was no need to reduce rates

Well we'll never know that, will we? There was a forecast, action was taken, all is well.

We can argue the toss over what might have, could have happened if if if, blah blah blah. But them's the facts.

Mr T more than happy to move on and address the new realities but a lot of your remainy collegues seem to want to dwell on their past failures and just not let go.

Increasingly it looks like if we just say "You were right" to the referendum losers, that may be enough to satisfy their vanity and get their egos onside

Or we could dip their dummies in some whiskey?

Patrick said:

That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.

For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.

Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.

Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability

That doesn't really answer my question re. Barbarossa.

In any case, the Germans didn't build invasion barges so much as steal them. Looking at Wiki, they motorised 200 existing barges with obsolete aircraft engines -

'The Kriegsmarine later used some of the motorized Sea Lion barges for landings on the Russian-held Baltic islands in 1941 and, though most of them were eventually returned to the inland rivers they originally plied, a reserve was kept for military transport duties and for filling out amphibious flotillas.'

This is hardly war effort draining stuff.

Leedsprinter said:

David_Evershed said:

isam said:

"A woman phoned up and said brexit won't be a disaster. Don't worry, it will"

https://youtu.be/NnxjZ-aFkjs

Correction

"A woman phoned up and said brexit will be a disaster. Don't worry, it won't"

Surely the joke is that this is an expert forecast, a la Michael Fish.

Isn’t weather forecaster more accurate than economic forecasting, if only because it’s based on real science?

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.

You do know we haven't left yet, right?

You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?

1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote.
2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote.
3. Vote to Leave.
4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism).
5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.

Immaculate management IMO.

or alternatively, as their own man has said their forecasting team called the whole thing wrong and really there was no need to reduce rates

Well we'll never know that, will we? There was a forecast, action was taken, all is well.

We can argue the toss over what might have, could have happened if if if, blah blah blah. But them's the facts.

Mr T more than happy to move on and address the new realities but a lot of your remainy collegues seem to want to dwell on their past failures and just not let go.

Amongst other challenges, the new reality includes:

1. how to rebase our economy away from consumption-driven growth;
2. how to rebalance asset prices; and
3. how to increase productivity.

IMO none of these things are going to be easier in the sink-or-swim environment of huge economic and political uncertainty that is Brexit.

Theuniondivvie said:

Patrick said:

That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.

For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.

Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.

Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability

That doesn't really answer my question re. Barbarossa.

In any case, the Germans didn't build invasion barges so much as steal them. Looking at Wiki, they motorised 200 existing barges with obsolete aircraft engines -

'The Kriegsmarine later used some of the motorized Sea Lion barges for landings on the Russian-held Baltic islands in 1941 and, though most of them were eventually returned to the inland rivers they originally plied, a reserve was kept for military transport duties and for filling out amphibious flotillas.'

This is hardly war effort draining stuff.

Every barge fitted out for Sealion was a barge not performing it's original duty of logistics. That translates into tons of raw materials being delayed to where they should go or needing alternate transportation.

Patrick said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Patrick said:

Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.

Have you a link to the proposition that Sealion delayed Barbarossa? Not read anything like that myself. Since Sealion 'cost' nothing in terms of landforces & related materiel, and afaicr the Luftwaffe was actually larger by the beginning of 1941 than it was at the start of the BoB, I find it hard to believe.

That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.

For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.

Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.

Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability

Two posts which give much food for thought, Mr P. Not necessarily about the actual subject of the debate, but about the underlying management principles.

Floater said:

you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.

Link?

The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.

Which, as you know, didn't happen

Re Barbarossa.

If misleading. I'd suggest what delayed Barbarossa was heavy support for the Italians in Greece (and concomitantly having to garrison those Yugoslavia and other places) and North Africa. The former involved, for example, effectively destroying Germany's airborne troop capability. The latter involved significant logistic effort.

Edit: it was also helpful for us (and that includes the Russians here) that German logistic capability was terrible. For example, they still put remarkable reliance on non-mechanised supply trains. Their military was, to a large degree all fur coat and no knickers.

daodao said:

The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".

And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.

Link?

The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.

Which, as you know, didn't happen

Because Cameron lied?

MarqueeMark said:

Floater said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/817310057541103617

14% still seems high to me.............

And when push comes to shove, those 39% don't knows after Corbyn has a disastrous election campaign will mostly fall to May.....

A quick check would be to go to early in 2010-2015 when there were still don't knows on that scale.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/23/best-pm-cameron-lead-14/

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/axuqr6j92z/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-Perceptions-220415.pdf

Now, I've gone for a single data point when there were DKs of 39 in 2012 - mid-February

Cameron 37 %
Miliband 19 %
Clegg 6 %
Don't Knows 39 %

By the time the election came around, after 5 years of cuts and government and all that, they had split. Just by, well, not very much.

Cameron 40 %
Miliband 29 %
Clegg 6 %
Don't Knows 27 %

The problem isn't that they're going to split favorably or otherwise, it's that they're really not going to split much at all.

Alistair said:

Theuniondivvie said:

That doesn't really answer my question re. Barbarossa.

In any case, the Germans didn't build invasion barges so much as steal them. Looking at Wiki, they motorised 200 existing barges with obsolete aircraft engines -

'The Kriegsmarine later used some of the motorized Sea Lion barges for landings on the Russian-held Baltic islands in 1941 and, though most of them were eventually returned to the inland rivers they originally plied, a reserve was kept for military transport duties and for filling out amphibious flotillas.'

This is hardly war effort draining stuff.

Every barge fitted out for Sealion was a barge not performing it's original duty of logistics. That translates into tons of raw materials being delayed to where they should go or needing alternate transportation.

Mebbes aye, mebbes no, but the original hypothesis was that the Germans 'built' an invasion fleet, part of an operation that was larger than Barbarossa in terms of 'men, materials, cost and prep effort', and that delayed the implementation of said Barbarossa.
Cannae see it myself.

...unless we don't trigger article 50

https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/816971603410034692

https://twitter.com/PCollinsTimes/status/817329540477370368

Luckyguy1983 said:

isam said:

...unless we don't trigger article 50

https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/816971603410034692

Clearly a Brexit voter. Eyes gleaming with racist bigotry, twisted mouth about to utter something unspeakable about immigrants, poor skin tone from total lack of quinoa.

There's a little Indian lady on the other end of that see saw

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/26/22/349B039100000578-0-Operation_Black_Vote_sparked_outrage_yesterday_after_releasing_a-m-7_1464299538908.jpg

daodao said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".

And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.

That is a small price for the EU to pay in order to preserve itself; after all, its prime raison d'etre is political, with the aim of ever closer union. For the UK, Brexit will be much graver from an economic perspective.

So you think the EU can preserve itself while coming up with trade deals that don't include free movement with nations like Turkey and (belatedly) Canada but can't possibly come up with one with its single biggest customer, the United Kingdom?

If so the EU doesn't deserve to preserve itself.

isam said:

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.

Link?

The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.

Which, as you know, didn't happen

So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?

Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.

BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.

daodao said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".

And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.

That is a small price for the EU to pay in order to preserve itself; after all, its prime raison d'etre is political, with the aim of ever closer union. For the UK, Brexit will be much graver from an economic perspective.

Like the old Sino-Japanese war "joke".

Two Chinese generals talking about the campaign. One says to the other: you know that we are losing 1m troops a day while the Japanese are only losing 50,000.

To which the other one replies: pretty soon no more Japanese.

rcs1000 said:

While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.

More importantly, the economic implications are not the only consideration, either for us, or on the other side for the 27 other countries plus the Commission plus the EU parliament. In addition, the sheer political difficulty of getting agreement with such a complex set of counterparties is daunting. It is perfectly possible that we might jointly tumble into an outcome which is bad or very bad, in economic terms, for both sides.

Edit: I'd add that one of the most worrying aspects is that, from the public announcements at least, there seems to be remarkably little awareness of the risk to the Eurozone economies on the EU side. They seem to be very complacent - more so, indeed, than the UK is.

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

Scott_P said:

Floater said:

you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.

Link?

The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.

Which, as you know, didn't happen

So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?

The Bank of England is independent.

Oh is it down to them to trigger A50? Get a move on Carney!

Hmm. They could have chosen to lower interest rates or not. They can raise them or not. The Treasury can't take their actions for granted which I think is what you implied when you said it (doom laden forecasts) "could have been avoided".

BannedInParis said:

MarqueeMark said:

Floater said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/817310057541103617

14% still seems high to me.............

And when push comes to shove, those 39% don't knows after Corbyn has a disastrous election campaign will mostly fall to May.....

A quick check would be to go to early in 2010-2015 when there were still don't knows on that scale.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/23/best-pm-cameron-lead-14/

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/axuqr6j92z/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-Perceptions-220415.pdf

Now, I've gone for a single data point when there were DKs of 39 in 2012 - mid-February

Cameron 37 %
Miliband 19 %
Clegg 6 %
Don't Knows 39 %

By the time the election came around, after 5 years of cuts and government and all that, they had split. Just by, well, not very much.

Cameron 40 %
Miliband 29 %
Clegg 6 %
Don't Knows 27 %

The problem isn't that they're going to split favorably or otherwise, it's that they're really not going to split much at all.

Or more likely, not vote at all.

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".

And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.

While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.

I accept your reasoning but it would be both the EU and the UK who would suffer in the event of an impasse.

However the opportunities for developing new markets once free of the strangle hold of the EU are immense and especially as the pound's exchange rate will encourage trade. It is also important that we start to source more from the UK and reduce imports

I also believe that the EU and in particular the Baltic states need the military and security protection that we can provide

No matter the option of staying in the single market and taking no action to stop free movement of labour and exiting the ECJ is just not an option for HMG.

Yesterday we heard Chuka Umunna's committee accept that visa restrictions are needed and that all immigrants must speak or learn English. At the same time the Unite Union challenger has stated free movement of labour must end.

Add into that the surprising admission by Vince Cable that there must be an end to free movement of labour we are beginning to see a substantial cross party acceptance that free movement must end

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".

And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.

While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.

That would ease the pain for their car companies, but not result in any gain for their economy would it? Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.

Remainers seem to be coming back to the fact that Brexit will fail because the underlying British economy is indepted, weak and only floating along on a bubble of misplaced trust - exactly. I don't want that any more, because in our out of the EU, it would have failed at some point. Better these things are faced up to now, and without the financial drain and increasing imposition of harmonisation that the EU represents.

I see we are back on to the same dull daily argument and recycled talking points from both sides. And with that I am off.

Yay.

‪@politicshome: EXCL Shami Chakrabarti urges Labour to reach verdict on Ken Livingstone Hitler remarks https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/82128/excl-shami-chakrabarti-urges-labour-reach-verdict

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see we are back on to the same dull daily argument and recycled talking points from both sides. And with that I am off.

But...wait...wait...don't go....come back...

oh.

Too late.