politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The consequences of what has already happened and the conseque

System · January 2017

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The consequences of what has already happened and the consequences of what is yet to come

Read the full story here

DavidL · January 2017

Do I want to be first?

Alanbrooke · January 2017

Comical Ali strikes again

Sandpit · January 2017

3rd!

williamglenn · January 2017

Alanbrooke said:
Comical Ali strikes again

Alanbrooke · January 2017

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:
Comical Ali strikes again

Matron Meeks will be along shortly to tell you off for levity

Pagan · January 2017

fpt

Remainers keep throwing around the 44% of our exports are to the eu figure and it sounds big and scary as the implication they make is it will drop to zero.

However if memory serves don't exports as a total make up somewhere like a total of between 10 and 15 percent of our total trade with the rest being domestic?

If so that means even if it drops to zero which is highly questionable what we are really talking about is an effect on between 4.4% and 6.6% of our total trade?

Doesn't sound quite so scary to me

isam · January 2017

I liked the first paragraph, nice alliteration (I think)

Terrorists will find it more difficult to travel from one end of a continent to another unchecked I reckon, and governments will be more careful who they let in.

Stark_Dawning · January 2017

I foresee an eviscerated Europe in the coming years: Britain, egged on by the Farage element, as a kind of vassal state to an alt-Right US; meanwhile Vlad slowly picks off the rest. It's a worrying prospect.

Floater · January 2017

Honestly Mr Meeks.

We seem to be able to co-operate security wise with non EU states and EU states.

I see also the Belgian security services have decided to show us yet again how rather pants they are.

Also worth pointing out tax alleviation schemes have been going on INSIDE the EU.

Floater · January 2017

Pagan said:
fpt

Remainers keep throwing around the 44% of our exports are to the eu figure and it sounds big and scary as the implication they make is it will drop to zero.

However if memory serves don't exports as a total make up somewhere like a total of between 10 and 15 percent of our total trade with the rest being domestic?

If so that means even if it drops to zero which is highly questionable what we are really talking about is an effect on between 4.4% and 6.6% of our total trade?

Doesn't sound quite so scary to me

It will not drop to zero though will it.

This is just project fear part 36

isam · January 2017

This thread reminds me of the time Spitting Image did "We've ruined the World" to the tune of "What a Wonderful World"

Pagan · January 2017

Floater said:

Pagan said:
fpt

Remainers keep throwing around the 44% of our exports are to the eu figure and it sounds big and scary as the implication they make is it will drop to zero.

However if memory serves don't exports as a total make up somewhere like a total of between 10 and 15 percent of our total trade with the rest being domestic?

If so that means even if it drops to zero which is highly questionable what we are really talking about is an effect on between 4.4% and 6.6% of our total trade?

Doesn't sound quite so scary to me
It will not drop to zero though will it.

This is just project fear part 36

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading. No different from the "doubles your risk of getting cancer if you exceed arbitrary limit" when what they mean is your risk of cancer from that activity has gone from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000

PlatoSaid · January 2017

Pagan said:

Floater said:

Pagan said:
fpt

Remainers keep throwing around the 44% of our exports are to the eu figure and it sounds big and scary as the implication they make is it will drop to zero.

However if memory serves don't exports as a total make up somewhere like a total of between 10 and 15 percent of our total trade with the rest being domestic?

If so that means even if it drops to zero which is highly questionable what we are really talking about is an effect on between 4.4% and 6.6% of our total trade?

Doesn't sound quite so scary to me
It will not drop to zero though will it.

This is just project fear part 36
It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading. No different from the "doubles your risk of getting cancer if you exceed arbitrary limit" when what they mean is your risk of cancer from that activity has gone from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000

CLAPS

Morris_Dancer · January 2017

Good afternoon, everyone.

If only bilateral and multilateral deals had been possible before the EU.

SimonStClare · January 2017

Cheers Mr Meeks, another surprisingly up-beat cathartic moment for a Sunday afternoon…

SouthamObserver · January 2017

Pagan said:

Floater said:

Pagan said:
fpt

Remainers keep throwing around the 44% of our exports are to the eu figure and it sounds big and scary as the implication they make is it will drop to zero.

However if memory serves don't exports as a total make up somewhere like a total of between 10 and 15 percent of our total trade with the rest being domestic?

If so that means even if it drops to zero which is highly questionable what we are really talking about is an effect on between 4.4% and 6.6% of our total trade?

Doesn't sound quite so scary to me
It will not drop to zero though will it.

This is just project fear part 36
It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading. No different from the "doubles your risk of getting cancer if you exceed arbitrary limit" when what they mean is your risk of cancer from that activity has gone from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000

One of my pet hates is people just making things up. Absolutely no-one has suggested that our EU trade will drop to zero. But it is a matter of fact that leaving the single market will make it more time-consuming and expensive to trade with countries that take 44% of our exports, while doing nothing to improve the terms of the trading relationships we have with the countries that take the other 56%. If you don't think that's a big deal, so be it. We'll find out if you're right soon enough.

Ally_B · January 2017

That sounds like a pretty good assessment of our future Alistair. We are living beyond our means, as many posters here used to point out in the early Coalition years but have stopped doing so more recently. However now there is a single party in power and they will have to deal with the fallout from triggering Article 50 and a collapsing income stream. It won't be pretty and I fully expect the electorate will hold them to blame, perhaps wrongly, for the mess we will be in by 2020.

Alanbrooke · January 2017

SouthamObserver said:

Pagan said:

Floater said:

Pagan said:
fpt

Remainers keep throwing around the 44% of our exports are to the eu figure and it sounds big and scary as the implication they make is it will drop to zero.

However if memory serves don't exports as a total make up somewhere like a total of between 10 and 15 percent of our total trade with the rest being domestic?

If so that means even if it drops to zero which is highly questionable what we are really talking about is an effect on between 4.4% and 6.6% of our total trade?

Doesn't sound quite so scary to me
It will not drop to zero though will it.

This is just project fear part 36
It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading. No different from the "doubles your risk of getting cancer if you exceed arbitrary limit" when what they mean is your risk of cancer from that activity has gone from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000

One of my pet hates is people just making things up. Absolutely no-one has suggested that our EU trade will drop to zero. But it is a matter of fact that leaving the single market will make it more time-consuming and expensive to trade with countries that take 44% of our exports, while doing nothing to improve the terms of the trading relationships we have with the countries that take the other 56%. If you don't think that's a big deal, so be it. We'll find out if you're right soon enough.

One of my pet hates is people just making things up

are you new to politics ? :-)

Pauly · January 2017

Mr Meeks is wrong that Brexit means less cooperation. The EU has superstate ambitions (just look at the Federalist grand coalition), leaving no cooperation between nation-states, just one artificial nation-state.

Blue_rog · January 2017

Because of Brexit, the World will end

SouthamObserver · January 2017

Blue_rog said:
Because of Brexit, the World will end

Nah - the world will continue to turn. But, as Alastair says, old certainties are coming to an end. Brexit is one symptom of that. A much less predictable relationship with a protectionist US is probably another.

Pagan · January 2017

SouthamObserver said:

Pagan said:

Floater said:

Pagan said:
fpt

Remainers keep throwing around the 44% of our exports are to the eu figure and it sounds big and scary as the implication they make is it will drop to zero.

However if memory serves don't exports as a total make up somewhere like a total of between 10 and 15 percent of our total trade with the rest being domestic?

If so that means even if it drops to zero which is highly questionable what we are really talking about is an effect on between 4.4% and 6.6% of our total trade?

Doesn't sound quite so scary to me
It will not drop to zero though will it.

This is just project fear part 36
It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading. No different from the "doubles your risk of getting cancer if you exceed arbitrary limit" when what they mean is your risk of cancer from that activity has gone from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000

One of my pet hates is people just making things up. Absolutely no-one has suggested that our EU trade will drop to zero. But it is a matter of fact that leaving the single market will make it more time-consuming and expensive to trade with countries that take 44% of our exports, while doing nothing to improve the terms of the trading relationships we have with the countries that take the other 56%. If you don't think that's a big deal, so be it. We'll find out if you're right soon enough.

Sorry Southam but that is the impression that the man in the street gets from many remainers that leaving the single market means no trade with the eu after brexit. The average man in the street doesn't pay much attention you have to remember.

My objection to it is that while people don't say it they imply it with phrases such as "lose access to the single market" you or I know that just means tariffs or other barriers. The average man in the street sees it as no ability to sell in.

No by the way its not just remainers using this sort of tactic, leavers do it to. As does every damn pressure group.

SouthamObserver · January 2017

Ally_B said:
That sounds like a pretty good assessment of our future Alistair. We are living beyond our means, as many posters here used to point out in the early Coalition years but have stopped doing so more recently. However now there is a single party in power and they will have to deal with the fallout from triggering Article 50 and a collapsing income stream. It won't be pretty and I fully expect the electorate will hold them to blame, perhaps wrongly, for the mess we will be in by 2020.

It's OK - Mrs May has a mandate to cut public services, tax credits and the top rate of tax in the name of a sharing society.

AnneJGP · January 2017

Thank you, Alastair, for all the effort you put in on your thread headers.

Myself, I'm a bit more optimistic. But then, I've been heavily influenced by a remark from an ex-Army colleague: "Any day's a good day if you're still alive at the end of it". So my expectations of life are probably lower than yours.

Indeed, I'm more interested in when & where the next significant development of human evolution is going to show itself, and what it will be. Rather too long-term for any betting opportunities, though.

Good afternoon, everyone.

SouthamObserver · January 2017

Pagan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pagan said:

Floater said:

Pagan said:
fpt

Remainers keep throwing around the 44% of our exports are to the eu figure and it sounds big and scary as the implication they make is it will drop to zero.

However if memory serves don't exports as a total make up somewhere like a total of between 10 and 15 percent of our total trade with the rest being domestic?

If so that means even if it drops to zero which is highly questionable what we are really talking about is an effect on between 4.4% and 6.6% of our total trade?

Doesn't sound quite so scary to me
It will not drop to zero though will it.

This is just project fear part 36
It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading. No different from the "doubles your risk of getting cancer if you exceed arbitrary limit" when what they mean is your risk of cancer from that activity has gone from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000

One of my pet hates is people just making things up. Absolutely no-one has suggested that our EU trade will drop to zero. But it is a matter of fact that leaving the single market will make it more time-consuming and expensive to trade with countries that take 44% of our exports, while doing nothing to improve the terms of the trading relationships we have with the countries that take the other 56%. If you don't think that's a big deal, so be it. We'll find out if you're right soon enough.

Sorry Southam but that is the impression that the man in the street gets from many remainers that leaving the single market means no trade with the eu after brexit. The average man in the street doesn't pay much attention you have to remember.

My objection to it is that while people don't say it they imply it with phrases such as "lose access to the single market" you or I know that just means tariffs or other barriers. The average man in the street sees it as no ability to sell in.

No by the way its not just remainers using this sort of tactic, leavers do it to. As does every damn pressure group.

I couldn't claim to speak for the average man in the street, but my guess is that he has next to no interest in or knowledge of the single market, and turns off when it is discussed.

DavidL · January 2017

I am trying to remember the name of the diplomat who was on R4 on Thursday explaining how diplomacy worked in the post Cold War world. Countries worked together when they agreed and didn't when they disagreed. The fact they disagreed about one thing did not stop them working together on others.

I think that our relationship with the EU will be like that. On issues like security we will work together even if we disagree about something else.

Pagan · January 2017

SouthamObserver said:

Pagan said:

SouthamObserver said:

One of my pet hates is people just making things up. Absolutely no-one has suggested that our EU trade will drop to zero. But it is a matter of fact that leaving the single market will make it more time-consuming and expensive to trade with countries that take 44% of our exports, while doing nothing to improve the terms of the trading relationships we have with the countries that take the other 56%. If you don't think that's a big deal, so be it. We'll find out if you're right soon enough.

Sorry Southam but that is the impression that the man in the street gets from many remainers that leaving the single market means no trade with the eu after brexit. The average man in the street doesn't pay much attention you have to remember.

My objection to it is that while people don't say it they imply it with phrases such as "lose access to the single market" you or I know that just means tariffs or other barriers. The average man in the street sees it as no ability to sell in.

No by the way its not just remainers using this sort of tactic, leavers do it to. As does every damn pressure group.

I couldn't claim to speak for the average man in the street, but my guess is that he has next to no interest in or knowledge of the single market, and turns off when it is discussed.

Well the whole point of using emotive language, which is what pressure groups do is to influence those without knowledge of the facts by scaring them. Part probably of why people have started to ignore experts. And yes the average man in the street has little knowledge of the single market that is why using figures such as 44% of exports strike home and phrases like "no access to the single market". The purpose is to scare and make him feel like that we risk losing 44% of all trade. The fact no one specifically says it doesn't change the fact that it is the intent.

surbiton · January 2017

Israeli Embassy's plot to "take down" British MPs requires at a very minimum the expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador.

Would we have accepted any other countries' officials saying something like that ?

Roger · January 2017

Interestingly a local estate agent told me that the English who have by traditoin been buyers of property on the Cote d'Azur are now thin on the ground (since Brexit) and the Russians Italians and Scandinavians have more than filled the gap. At odds with this article written last August which suggests the opposite but it wouldn't be the first time the Mail has got things wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-3717190/An-escape-hatch-burdened-taste-250m-world-s-expensive-villa.html

surbiton · January 2017

SouthamObserver said:

Pagan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pagan said:

Floater said:

Pagan said:
fpt

Remainers keep throwing around the 44% of our exports are to the eu figure and it sounds big and scary as the implication they make is it will drop to zero.

However if memory serves don't exports as a total make up somewhere like a total of between 10 and 15 percent of our total trade with the rest being domestic?

If so that means even if it drops to zero which is highly questionable what we are really talking about is an effect on between 4.4% and 6.6% of our total trade?

Doesn't sound quite so scary to me
It will not drop to zero though will it.

This is just project fear part 36
It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading. No different from the "doubles your risk of getting cancer if you exceed arbitrary limit" when what they mean is your risk of cancer from that activity has gone from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000

One of my pet hates is people just making things up. Absolutely no-one has suggested that our EU trade will drop to zero. But it is a matter of fact that leaving the single market will make it more time-consuming and expensive to trade with countries that take 44% of our exports, while doing nothing to improve the terms of the trading relationships we have with the countries that take the other 56%. If you don't think that's a big deal, so be it. We'll find out if you're right soon enough.

Sorry Southam but that is the impression that the man in the street gets from many remainers that leaving the single market means no trade with the eu after brexit. The average man in the street doesn't pay much attention you have to remember.

My objection to it is that while people don't say it they imply it with phrases such as "lose access to the single market" you or I know that just means tariffs or other barriers. The average man in the street sees it as no ability to sell in.

No by the way its not just remainers using this sort of tactic, leavers do it to. As does every damn pressure group.

I couldn't claim to speak for the average man in the street, but my guess is that he has next to no interest in or knowledge of the single market, and turns off when it is discussed.

I agree. That is why your average Brexit voting fruit seller is perplexed why we have not left the EU yet. He believes there is a switch which can just be turned off. Of course, it is all the fault of the EU and bloody foreigners.

Morris_Dancer · January 2017

Good afternoon, Miss JGP.

viewcode · January 2017

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.

350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Pagan · January 2017

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.
350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Did you miss the part where I said leavers did it too?

AnneJGP · January 2017

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.
350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Every day's delay costs us a lot of money.

Pagan · January 2017

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.
350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Did you miss the part where I said leavers did it too?

People here often complain about people not following politics, not understanding the issues. My complaint here is that it is the fault of politicians, pressure groups and the media who use weasel words to influence rather than give facts. People have become so used to hearing this crap and then discovering the facts behind it aren't as represented that they now just tune it out.

None of us have time to check out everything so most just ignore it and vote with their feelings. Start treating people like adults and giving them real data to process and maybe more people will make rational decisions. Can't see any side in any debate doing it sadly but if you want voters to start behaving intelligently stop trying to scare them into doing what you want

felix · January 2017

Roger said:
Interestingly a local estate agent told me that the English who have by traditoin been buyers of property on the Cote d'Azur are now thin on the ground (since Brexit) and the Russians Italians and Scandinavians have more than filled the gap. At odds with this article written last August which suggests the opposite but it wouldn't be the first time the Mail has got things wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-3717190/An-escape-hatch-burdened-taste-250m-world-s-expensive-villa.html

And anything an estate agent tells you about the property market is bound to be honest and accurate.

HYUFD · January 2017

Given the supposed nirvana of greater globalisation has led to lower wages for the lowest paid and outsourcing of their jobs it is not that surprising there has been a move towards more nationalism and protectionism. As for China it will be hit by a trade war with the US given the amount it exports there and its population is beginning to decline while that of the US is still growing. India may be the greatest beneficiary as it has been less a target of Trump's anger and has a faster growing population than China but of course on gdp per capita terms (which is what matters to most people in real terms) the average Westerner and the average European will still be far richer than the average Indian even if the gap does narrow.

HYUFD · January 2017

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:
Comical Ali strikes again

According to Leavers yes, maybe not to diehard Remoaners

felix · January 2017

surbiton said:
Israeli Embassy's plot to "take down" British MPs requires at a very minimum the expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador.

Would we have accepted any other countries' officials saying something like that ?

Let's hope e the Labour opposition demand this very loudly over the next few days to boost their poll ratings.

viewcode · January 2017

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.
350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Did you miss the part where I said leavers did it too?

Ironically, it was less than 5% of your post...

HYUFD · January 2017

Ally_B said:
That sounds like a pretty good assessment of our future Alistair. We are living beyond our means, as many posters here used to point out in the early Coalition years but have stopped doing so more recently. However now there is a single party in power and they will have to deal with the fallout from triggering Article 50 and a collapsing income stream. It won't be pretty and I fully expect the electorate will hold them to blame, perhaps wrongly, for the mess we will be in by 2020.

The electorate voted Leave, they want border control and they can't stand Corbyn, May will win the 2020 election with a clear majority whatever happens

brokenwheel · January 2017

"Just as Western governments will weaken relative to other countries, they will weaken relative to non-government actors. Large corporations will be more influential with individual governments, since those governments will co-operate less on developing a common front. Tax avoidance and arbitrage is likely to rise as governments compete more overtly with each other to secure the tax revenues of large multi-nationals. Similarly, the very wealthiest individuals who are mobile will be able to secure still more favourable treatment from states looking for taxes. All other things being equal, collective tax takes of Western countries are likely to decline."

Large corporations are already more influential under the EU. There is a reason the vast majority were in favour of our continued membership, it wasn't any concern for the general public. Of course the increasingly rampant tax avoidance we have seen hasn't at all been ENABLED by the EU, no siree...

And for that matter one of the worst offenders Switzerland is on the EU's doorstep and yet it does nothing.

This notion that somehow the EU is some kind of protection from multinationals scamming the public is a fantasy.

HYUFD · January 2017

SouthamObserver said:

Ally_B said:
That sounds like a pretty good assessment of our future Alistair. We are living beyond our means, as many posters here used to point out in the early Coalition years but have stopped doing so more recently. However now there is a single party in power and they will have to deal with the fallout from triggering Article 50 and a collapsing income stream. It won't be pretty and I fully expect the electorate will hold them to blame, perhaps wrongly, for the mess we will be in by 2020.

It's OK - Mrs May has a mandate to cut public services, tax credits and the top rate of tax in the name of a sharing society.

May and Hammond are still increasing public spending on the NHS, not cutting tax credits as Osborne began to do and have not yet cut the top rate of tax again as Cameron and Osborne did either, so wrong on all 3 counts

Alanbrooke · January 2017

brokenwheel said:
"Just as Western governments will weaken relative to other countries, they will weaken relative to non-government actors. Large corporations will be more influential with individual governments, since those governments will co-operate less on developing a common front. Tax avoidance and arbitrage is likely to rise as governments compete more overtly with each other to secure the tax revenues of large multi-nationals. Similarly, the very wealthiest individuals who are mobile will be able to secure still more favourable treatment from states looking for taxes. All other things being equal, collective tax takes of Western countries are likely to decline."

Large corporations are already more influential under the EU. There is a reason the vast majority were in favour of our continued membership, it wasn't any concern for the general public. Of course the increasingly rampant tax avoidance we have seen hasn't at all been ENABLED by the EU, no siree...

And for that matter one of the worst offenders Switzerland is on the EU's doorstep and yet it does nothing.

This notion that somehow the EU is some kind of protection from multinationals scamming the public is a fantasy.

The worst offender must be Luxembourg

Pagan · January 2017

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.
350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Did you miss the part where I said leavers did it too?
Ironically, it was less than 5% of your post...

It is a general gripe, just happened to be triggered by the 44% debate in the last thread

. The point remains however in any debate about anything the first impulse is to put the information in a context that while 100% true acts to push the audience in a certain direction.

We would be better off as a society and make better decisions if we all got told the actual facts about anything. All scare tactics do is make people believe them up until they find out the truth behind any one of them then they get cynical about all of them.

williamglenn · January 2017

Alanbrooke said:

brokenwheel said:
"Just as Western governments will weaken relative to other countries, they will weaken relative to non-government actors. Large corporations will be more influential with individual governments, since those governments will co-operate less on developing a common front. Tax avoidance and arbitrage is likely to rise as governments compete more overtly with each other to secure the tax revenues of large multi-nationals. Similarly, the very wealthiest individuals who are mobile will be able to secure still more favourable treatment from states looking for taxes. All other things being equal, collective tax takes of Western countries are likely to decline."

Large corporations are already more influential under the EU. There is a reason the vast majority were in favour of our continued membership, it wasn't any concern for the general public. Of course the increasingly rampant tax avoidance we have seen hasn't at all been ENABLED by the EU, no siree...

And for that matter one of the worst offenders Switzerland is on the EU's doorstep and yet it does nothing.

This notion that somehow the EU is some kind of protection from multinationals scamming the public is a fantasy.
The worst offender must be Luxembourg

Offender against the narrative that small countries are powerless (in the EU)?

PlatoSaid · January 2017

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.
350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Did you miss the part where I said leavers did it too?
Ironically, it was less than 5% of your post...
It is a general gripe, just happened to be triggered by the 44% debate in the last thread . The point remains however in any debate about anything the first impulse is to put the information in a context that while 100% true acts to push the audience in a certain direction.

We would be better off as a society and make better decisions if we all got told the actual facts about anything. All scare tactics do is make people believe them up until they find out the truth behind any one of them then they get cynical about all of them.

Quite.

HYUFD · January 2017

https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113

Alanbrooke · January 2017

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

brokenwheel said:
"Just as Western governments will weaken relative to other countries, they will weaken relative to non-government actors. Large corporations will be more influential with individual governments, since those governments will co-operate less on developing a common front. Tax avoidance and arbitrage is likely to rise as governments compete more overtly with each other to secure the tax revenues of large multi-nationals. Similarly, the very wealthiest individuals who are mobile will be able to secure still more favourable treatment from states looking for taxes. All other things being equal, collective tax takes of Western countries are likely to decline."

Large corporations are already more influential under the EU. There is a reason the vast majority were in favour of our continued membership, it wasn't any concern for the general public. Of course the increasingly rampant tax avoidance we have seen hasn't at all been ENABLED by the EU, no siree...

And for that matter one of the worst offenders Switzerland is on the EU's doorstep and yet it does nothing.

This notion that somehow the EU is some kind of protection from multinationals scamming the public is a fantasy.
The worst offender must be Luxembourg
Offender against the narrative that small countries are powerless (in the EU)?

No, offender against where german politicians hide their cash

SouthamObserver · January 2017

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Ally_B said:
That sounds like a pretty good assessment of our future Alistair. We are living beyond our means, as many posters here used to point out in the early Coalition years but have stopped doing so more recently. However now there is a single party in power and they will have to deal with the fallout from triggering Article 50 and a collapsing income stream. It won't be pretty and I fully expect the electorate will hold them to blame, perhaps wrongly, for the mess we will be in by 2020.

It's OK - Mrs May has a mandate to cut public services, tax credits and the top rate of tax in the name of a sharing society.

May and Hammond are still increasing public spending on the NHS, not cutting tax credits as Osborne began to do and have not yet cut the top rate of tax again as Cameron and Osborne did either, so wrong on all 3 counts

Yep, as I thought: you don't quite know what a mandate is. Or a prediction.

surbiton · January 2017

felix said:

surbiton said:
Israeli Embassy's plot to "take down" British MPs requires at a very minimum the expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador.

Would we have accepted any other countries' officials saying something like that ?
Let's hope e the Labour opposition demand this very loudly over the next few days to boost their poll ratings.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/08/labour-calls-for-inquiry-into-israeli-diplomats-take-down-mps-plot

Your wish has been answered.

chestnut · January 2017

Ally_B said:
That sounds like a pretty good assessment of our future Alistair. We are living beyond our means, as many posters here used to point out in the early Coalition years but have stopped doing so more recently. However now there is a single party in power and they will have to deal with the fallout from triggering Article 50 and a collapsing income stream. It won't be pretty and I fully expect the electorate will hold them to blame, perhaps wrongly, for the mess we will be in by 2020.

The primary deficit is now smaller than the overseas aid budget plus EU contribution (Euroaid).

Pauly · January 2017

chestnut said:

Ally_B said:
That sounds like a pretty good assessment of our future Alistair. We are living beyond our means, as many posters here used to point out in the early Coalition years but have stopped doing so more recently. However now there is a single party in power and they will have to deal with the fallout from triggering Article 50 and a collapsing income stream. It won't be pretty and I fully expect the electorate will hold them to blame, perhaps wrongly, for the mess we will be in by 2020.
The primary deficit is now smaller than the overseas aid budget plus EU contribution (Euroaid).

Not to mention the £7bn+ Levy Control Framework subsidising renewables, which could dramatically reduce if science reaches a point where they are competitive without subsidies.
Or the £3bn+ agricultural subsidies we can axe, in a corn laws round II.

We are basically living within our means at that point.

viewcode · January 2017

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.
350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Did you miss the part where I said leavers did it too?
Ironically, it was less than 5% of your post...
It is a general gripe, just happened to be triggered by the 44% debate in the last thread . The point remains however in any debate about anything the first impulse is to put the information in a context that while 100% true acts to push the audience in a certain direction.

We would be better off as a society and make better decisions if we all got told the actual facts about anything. All scare tactics do is make people believe them up until they find out the truth behind any one of them then they get cynical about all of them.

There is the germ of a serious point here, concerning the responsibility of the speaker towards his/her audience. One rather disillusioning aspect of my adult career is that people only want to hear things that lines up with their worldview, and as the advice deviates further and further from that view they become more and more resistant. I was once asked to set up a system to display coverage for "the entire country" and the difficulty I experienced in getting the vendors to accept the hat yes, that included Northern Ireland and Scotland was initially comical, then frightening, them just depressing. I got round it by specifying individual postcode sectors and in the end everybody was happy but Christ, it was hard.

In summary: the ethical personn must tell the truth. But making people listen is extraordinarily difficult.

Alanbrooke · January 2017

surbiton said:

felix said:

surbiton said:
Israeli Embassy's plot to "take down" British MPs requires at a very minimum the expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador.

Would we have accepted any other countries' officials saying something like that ?
Let's hope e the Labour opposition demand this very loudly over the next few days to boost their poll ratings.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/08/labour-calls-for-inquiry-into-israeli-diplomats-take-down-mps-plot

Your wish has been answered.

shouldnt it be Tories asking for it ?

what's in it for Labour ?

RobD · January 2017

surbiton said:

felix said:

surbiton said:
Israeli Embassy's plot to "take down" British MPs requires at a very minimum the expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador.

Would we have accepted any other countries' officials saying something like that ?
Let's hope e the Labour opposition demand this very loudly over the next few days to boost their poll ratings.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/08/labour-calls-for-inquiry-into-israeli-diplomats-take-down-mps-plot

Your wish has been answered.

I think Crispin Blunt has also called for an investigation.

brokenwheel · January 2017

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113

I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.

Richard_Tyndall · January 2017

brokenwheel said:
"Just as Western governments will weaken relative to other countries, they will weaken relative to non-government actors. Large corporations will be more influential with individual governments, since those governments will co-operate less on developing a common front. Tax avoidance and arbitrage is likely to rise as governments compete more overtly with each other to secure the tax revenues of large multi-nationals. Similarly, the very wealthiest individuals who are mobile will be able to secure still more favourable treatment from states looking for taxes. All other things being equal, collective tax takes of Western countries are likely to decline."

Large corporations are already more influential under the EU. There is a reason the vast majority were in favour of our continued membership, it wasn't any concern for the general public. Of course the increasingly rampant tax avoidance we have seen hasn't at all been ENABLED by the EU, no siree...

And for that matter one of the worst offenders Switzerland is on the EU's doorstep and yet it does nothing.

This notion that somehow the EU is some kind of protection from multinationals scamming the public is a fantasy.

Yep. One of Mr Meeks' most ludicrous claims is that EU membership reduced tax avoidance when in fact it made it far easier. The single Market has been one of the biggest facilitators of tax avoidance by big companies in history. Added to this the EU has massively increased the influence and power of lobbyists by centralising the rule making and so leaning they only have to influence one central authority rather than 28 dispersed ones. None of this has been to the benefit of the public.

surbiton · January 2017

Alanbrooke said:

surbiton said:

felix said:

surbiton said:
Israeli Embassy's plot to "take down" British MPs requires at a very minimum the expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador.

Would we have accepted any other countries' officials saying something like that ?
Let's hope e the Labour opposition demand this very loudly over the next few days to boost their poll ratings.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/08/labour-calls-for-inquiry-into-israeli-diplomats-take-down-mps-plot

Your wish has been answered.
shouldnt it be Tories asking for it ?

what's in it for Labour ?

The fact that a foreign embassy official is talking about "taking down" a British MP. Now I can see why Trump has no problem with Russian hacking. It was the DNC which was hacked. So it was OK !

Pagan · January 2017

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.
350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Did you miss the part where I said leavers did it too?
Ironically, it was less than 5% of your post...
It is a general gripe, just happened to be triggered by the 44% debate in the last thread . The point remains however in any debate about anything the first impulse is to put the information in a context that while 100% true acts to push the audience in a certain direction.

We would be better off as a society and make better decisions if we all got told the actual facts about anything. All scare tactics do is make people believe them up until they find out the truth behind any one of them then they get cynical about all of them.
There is the germ of a serious point here, concerning the responsibility of the speaker towards his/her audience. One rather disillusioning aspect of my adult career is that people only want to hear things that lines up with their worldview, and as the advice deviates further and further from that view they become more and more resistant. I was once asked to set up a system to display coverage for "the entire country" and the difficulty I experienced in getting the vendors to accept the hat yes, that included Northern Ireland and Scotland was initially comical, then frightening, them just depressing. I got round it by specifying individual postcode sectors and in the end everybody was happy but Christ, it was hard.

In summary: the ethical personn must tell the truth. But making people listen is extraordinarily difficult.

Too often though it is used as a device because the speaker knows they won't listen, and the reason they won't listen is because while it is something the speaker has a bee in their bonnet over the actual figures will make most go meh. The health campaigners are particularly prone to this with their scares, they know people will quite sensibly not be to bothered about an increase in risk from 0.01 to 0.02 percent so instead go with the doubles your risk line.

Not sure what we do about it as it is far too embedded now

Alanbrooke · January 2017

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

viewcode said:

Pagan said:

It is one of my pet hates who ever is doing it, making figures seem bigger than they are, totally accurate but totally misleading.
350 million. 350 million, 350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Malkovich, malkovich,

350 million, 350 million, 350 million.

Pause.

350 million

Did you miss the part where I said leavers did it too?
Ironically, it was less than 5% of your post...
It is a general gripe, just happened to be triggered by the 44% debate in the last thread . The point remains however in any debate about anything the first impulse is to put the information in a context that while 100% true acts to push the audience in a certain direction.

We would be better off as a society and make better decisions if we all got told the actual facts about anything. All scare tactics do is make people believe them up until they find out the truth behind any one of them then they get cynical about all of them.
There is the germ of a serious point here, concerning the responsibility of the speaker towards his/her audience. One rather disillusioning aspect of my adult career is that people only want to hear things that lines up with their worldview, and as the advice deviates further and further from that view they become more and more resistant. I was once asked to set up a system to display coverage for "the entire country" and the difficulty I experienced in getting the vendors to accept the hat yes, that included Northern Ireland and Scotland was initially comical, then frightening, them just depressing. I got round it by specifying individual postcode sectors and in the end everybody was happy but Christ, it was hard.

In summary: the ethical personn must tell the truth. But making people listen is extraordinarily difficult.

Too often though it is used as a device because the speaker knows they won't listen, and the reason they won't listen is because while it is something the speaker has a bee in their bonnet over the actual figures will make most go meh. The health campaigners are particularly prone to this with their scares, they know people will quite sensibly not be to bothered about an increase in risk from 0.01 to 0.02 percent so instead go with the doubles your risk line.

Not sure what we do about it as it is far too embedded now

we could publicly execute health campaigners

" spinning health care statistics will increase your chance of an early death"

surbiton · January 2017

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.

No. It is 35 out of 150 members of parliament. That is 23%.

HYUFD · January 2017

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.

Yes, you are right, Wilders' actually has an even bigger lead. Never mind Le Pen, it looks like the first far right party winning most votes and seats in a general election will come in the Netherlands in March

PVV 35%
VVD 23%
CDA 15%
D66 14%
GL 14%
SO 11%
50Plus 11%
PvdA 10%
http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

MarkHopkins · January 2017

It is "unfair" to ask what Labour's position is on immigration controls

RobD · January 2017

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.

Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?

brokenwheel · January 2017

surbiton said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
No. It is 35 out of 150 members of parliament. That is 23%.

Oops you're right. Confusing to list it as a percent.

brokenwheel · January 2017

RobD said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?

I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?

HYUFD · January 2017

brokenwheel said:

RobD said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?
I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?

I think Wilders and Le Pen will get most votes when they go to the polls in March and April respectively but Wilders will be kept out by the other parties and Le Pen will lose on the second round. I also think the AfD will come a clear third in Germany in September but Merkel will refuse to do a deal with them and stick to her Grand Coalition with the SPD.

In my view the first Eurosceptic party to win outright in the EU will be 5* in Italy in May 2018

Mortimer · January 2017

MarkHopkins said:

It is "unfair" to ask what Labour's position is on immigration controls

Con gain Bootle.

Leader: Hiding behind glass doors, refusing to answer a question about whether a general election is wanted, deputy leader: saying that expecting a political party to have a policy position is unfair.

That all points to a short campaign disaster for the Labour Party.

Ishmael_Z · January 2017

Pagan said:

Too often though it is used as a device because the speaker knows they won't listen, and the reason they won't listen is because while it is something the speaker has a bee in their bonnet over the actual figures will make most go meh. The health campaigners are particularly prone to this with their scares, they know people will quite sensibly not be to bothered about an increase in risk from 0.01 to 0.02 percent so instead go with the doubles your risk line.

Not sure what we do about it as it is far too embedded now

On the other hand, relative percentages are sometimes more truthful than absolute ones. If interest rates fall from 2% to 1% that is "only" a drop of 1%, but to someone looking to live off the interest on a nest-egg it is a drop in their income of 50%. What I can't work out is what the general rule is which determines whether the relative or absolute percentage is more informative.

RobD · January 2017

Ishmael_Z said:

Pagan said:

Too often though it is used as a device because the speaker knows they won't listen, and the reason they won't listen is because while it is something the speaker has a bee in their bonnet over the actual figures will make most go meh. The health campaigners are particularly prone to this with their scares, they know people will quite sensibly not be to bothered about an increase in risk from 0.01 to 0.02 percent so instead go with the doubles your risk line.

Not sure what we do about it as it is far too embedded now
On the other hand, relative percentages are sometimes more truthful than absolute ones. If interest rates fall from 2% to 1% that is "only" a drop of 1%, but to someone looking to live off the interest on a nest-egg it is a drop in their income of 50%. What I can't work out is what the general rule is which determines whether the relative or absolute percentage is more informative.

Maybe it is more confusing, but you could state that interest rates had fallen by 50% from 2% to 1%.

surbiton · January 2017

brokenwheel said:

RobD said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?
I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?

How can they be a coalition of losers if together they are more than 50% ? Nothing stops the racists getting their 50%, if they can.

So they are the losers.

williamglenn · January 2017

It looks like it would take a substantial shift for the LDs to threaten many Labour Remain seats.

https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/818111880174694401

RobD · January 2017

surbiton said:

brokenwheel said:

RobD said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?
I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?
How can they be a coalition of losers if together they are more than 50% ? Nothing stops the racists getting their 50%, if they can.

So they are the losers.

It must be a bit disappointing to vote for a party, and then they abandon policy positions to go into coalition with another party.

Roger · January 2017

(From the end of the last thread). TimT.

"Powerful stuff. Someone speaking their unfiltered, strongest emotions with an authenticity that cuts through the crap. "

You clearly didn't bother to read it. It's a Katie Hopkins/Plato racist rant. It had nothing to do with any authentic person speaking their mind. It was a dream sequence by Katie Hopkins

rcs1000 · January 2017

williamglenn said:
It looks like it would take a substantial shift for the LDs to threaten many Labour Remain seats.

https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/818111880174694401

There are only three or four potential LibDem gains from Labour. And that's assuming the LibDems poll about 12-14%, and Labour is down 6-8%.

RobD · January 2017

williamglenn said:
It looks like it would take a substantial shift for the LDs to threaten many Labour Remain seats.

https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/818111880174694401

Percentages and seats combined on one graph? Disgusting!

HYUFD · January 2017

surbiton said:

brokenwheel said:

RobD said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?
I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?
How can they be a coalition of losers if together they are more than 50% ? Nothing stops the racists getting their 50%, if they can.

So they are the losers.

As I said the first Eurosceptic party in the EU to win outright will be 5* as it is more difficult to categorise as racist, in some respects it resembles more Vote Leave than the Far Right albeit focused more on an anti Euro rather than anti EU agenda

brokenwheel · January 2017

surbiton said:

brokenwheel said:

RobD said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?
I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?
How can they be a coalition of losers if together they are more than 50% ? Nothing stops the racists getting their 50%, if they can.

So they are the losers.

I was just using RobD's terminology, ask him. Besides most normal people would say the party that got by far the most votes was the "winner" in the same way the people "with Her" moan that Hillary was the winner based on the popular vote...

isam · January 2017

https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/818142484610109441

Omnium · January 2017

Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.

Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.

@Plato, @Pagan
I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?

MarqueeMark · January 2017

Mortimer said:

MarkHopkins said:

It is "unfair" to ask what Labour's position is on immigration controls

Con gain Bootle.

Leader: Hiding behind glass doors, refusing to answer a question about whether a general election is wanted, deputy leader: saying that expecting a political party to have a policy position is unfair.

That all points to a short campaign disaster for the Labour Party.

Labour's next election campaign will make the Edstone seem like Blair sweeping into Downing Street through the cheering masses....

tlg86 · January 2017

isam said:
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/818142484610109441

Yeah, but he was a nice young man before he was locked up in Guantanamo!

rcs1000 · January 2017

brokenwheel said:

surbiton said:

brokenwheel said:

RobD said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?
I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?
How can they be a coalition of losers if together they are more than 50% ? Nothing stops the racists getting their 50%, if they can.

So they are the losers.
I was just using RobD's terminology, ask him. Besides most normal people would say the party that got by far the most votes was the "winner" in the same way the people "with Her" moan that Hillary was the winner based on the popular vote...

The Dutch system, though, encourages an incredibly fragmented landscape with many similar parties. Does any other country - for example - have two different Green Parties, both represented in parliament (The Party for the Animals, and The GreenLeft). Likewise, there are two broadly similar Centre Right groups (the CDA and the VVD). Likewise, there are two different parties that are members of the ALDE.

I'd also note that Peil has consistently shown slightly strange results: it has more PVV voters agreeing with the statement "The Euro is good for the Netherlands" than disagreeing with it (which would presumably annoy Geert no end); and it has consistently has a much higher PVV share than - for example - Ipsos.

All that being said, the PVV is the red hot favourite to "win" the Dutch General elections. But with less than a quarter of the vote (and possibly less than 20%), it's hard to see what coalition they could put together.

Ishmael_Z · January 2017

Interesting header, but it is really really difficult to sort out what is cause and what is effect, what is largely irrelevant, and what was coming anyway. William Gibson's Sprawl trilogy in the 1980s was already predicting a world controlled by info tech zaibatsu from corporate arcologies rather than by governments; he has a good line about African nations "so backward that they still took the concept of nationhood seriously." What I am most certain about is that the way things are going was baked in before 2016; things would not feel massively different if we were now all happy little EUers awaiting Hillary's inauguration.

David_Evershed · January 2017

Ishmael_Z said:

Pagan said:

Too often though it is used as a device because the speaker knows they won't listen, and the reason they won't listen is because while it is something the speaker has a bee in their bonnet over the actual figures will make most go meh. The health campaigners are particularly prone to this with their scares, they know people will quite sensibly not be to bothered about an increase in risk from 0.01 to 0.02 percent so instead go with the doubles your risk line.

Not sure what we do about it as it is far too embedded now
On the other hand, relative percentages are sometimes more truthful than absolute ones. If interest rates fall from 2% to 1% that is "only" a drop of 1%, but to someone looking to live off the interest on a nest-egg it is a drop in their income of 50%. What I can't work out is what the general rule is which determines whether the relative or absolute percentage is more informative.

If you are given the absolute figures you can always work out the relative figures.

But not vice versa.

foxinsoxuk · January 2017

Omnium said:
Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.

Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.

@Plato, @Pagan
I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?

Probably the best measure for assessing risk is the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). To illustrate:

If the risk of an embolic stroke is 1 in 100 per year whilst in atrial fibrillation, and by taking Warfarin changes this to 1 in 200; the risk of stroke could be described as halved, but as discussed this may be misleading depending on the baseline risk. The NNT per year would be 200, as 200 people would have to be treated to prevent one stroke.

Of course the prescribing doctor can still sell the treatment several ways:

1) Taking warfarin halves the risk of stroke.
2) If you take warfarin for 10 years then the chance is only 1/20 that it has done you any good.
3) You would have to take the drug for 200 years to prevent a stroke

All the same data, just presented differently. Incidentally, the above is roughly accurate, though other risk factors come into it and need treating.

Ishmael_Z · January 2017

David_Evershed said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Pagan said:

Too often though it is used as a device because the speaker knows they won't listen, and the reason they won't listen is because while it is something the speaker has a bee in their bonnet over the actual figures will make most go meh. The health campaigners are particularly prone to this with their scares, they know people will quite sensibly not be to bothered about an increase in risk from 0.01 to 0.02 percent so instead go with the doubles your risk line.

Not sure what we do about it as it is far too embedded now
On the other hand, relative percentages are sometimes more truthful than absolute ones. If interest rates fall from 2% to 1% that is "only" a drop of 1%, but to someone looking to live off the interest on a nest-egg it is a drop in their income of 50%. What I can't work out is what the general rule is which determines whether the relative or absolute percentage is more informative.
If you are given the absolute figures you can always work out the relative figures.

But not vice versa.

That is a good point, if you are capable of doing the math.

The way this sort of stuff is presented can matter. I had to decide in real life whether it is worth doing a really unpleasant 6 months of chemotherapy to raise one's survival chances from 65% to 68%. The odds are against one being one of the 3%, but then again they are higher than the odds of throwing double sixes with a pair of dice (2.8%), and throwing double sixes is not an everyday event, but not something so rare and unusual that it gets reported on the news and goes viral on the internet.

RobD · January 2017

rcs1000 said:

brokenwheel said:

surbiton said:

brokenwheel said:

RobD said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?
I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?
How can they be a coalition of losers if together they are more than 50% ? Nothing stops the racists getting their 50%, if they can.

So they are the losers.
I was just using RobD's terminology, ask him. Besides most normal people would say the party that got by far the most votes was the "winner" in the same way the people "with Her" moan that Hillary was the winner based on the popular vote...
The Dutch system, though, encourages an incredibly fragmented landscape with many similar parties. Does any other country - for example - have two different Green Parties, both represented in parliament (The Party for the Animals, and The GreenLeft). Likewise, there are two broadly similar Centre Right groups (the CDA and the VVD). Likewise, there are two different parties that are members of the ALDE.

I'd also note that Peil has consistently shown slightly strange results: it has more PVV voters agreeing with the statement "The Euro is good for the Netherlands" than disagreeing with it (which would presumably annoy Geert no end); and it has consistently has a much higher PVV share than - for example - Ipsos.

All that being said, the PVV is the red hot favourite to "win" the Dutch General elections. But with less than a quarter of the vote (and possibly less than 20%), it's hard to see what coalition they could put together.

Most polls put PVV on 30-35%, unless you think they are wrong?

rcs1000 · January 2017

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

brokenwheel said:

surbiton said:

brokenwheel said:

RobD said:

brokenwheel said:

HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/818080102827327488

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818079364315226113
I think they have got the figures wrong;

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html#peilnl

They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?
I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?
How can they be a coalition of losers if together they are more than 50% ? Nothing stops the racists getting their 50%, if they can.

So they are the losers.
I was just using RobD's terminology, ask him. Besides most normal people would say the party that got by far the most votes was the "winner" in the same way the people "with Her" moan that Hillary was the winner based on the popular vote...
The Dutch system, though, encourages an incredibly fragmented landscape with many similar parties. Does any other country - for example - have two different Green Parties, both represented in parliament (The Party for the Animals, and The GreenLeft). Likewise, there are two broadly similar Centre Right groups (the CDA and the VVD). Likewise, there are two different parties that are members of the ALDE.

I'd also note that Peil has consistently shown slightly strange results: it has more PVV voters agreeing with the statement "The Euro is good for the Netherlands" than disagreeing with it (which would presumably annoy Geert no end); and it has consistently has a much higher PVV share than - for example - Ipsos.

All that being said, the PVV is the red hot favourite to "win" the Dutch General elections. But with less than a quarter of the vote (and possibly less than 20%), it's hard to see what coalition they could put together.
Most polls put PVV on 30-35%, unless you think they are wrong?

30-35 seats: i.e. 20-23%.

nielh · January 2017

Good article but feels like brexit groundhog day and not are getting any further forward.
Although I broadly agree with Mr Meeks I think what is missing is an assessment of the counterfactual
Were remain and hilary to have won and the obama doctrine continued we would have eventually been drawn in to conflict with russia in a proxy war either in eastern europe or the middle east. ultimately western governments are too weak,beholden to capitalism, and popular opinion was solid against more wars. Maybe europeans are too soft and cowardly having grown fat on 70 years of US sponsored peace and prosperity. As others pointed out these trends have been apparent for a long time so brexit doesnt really change any of this.
More broadly what we are seeing is perhaps the decline of the liberal democratic order.

nunu · January 2017

tlg86 said:

isam said:
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/818142484610109441
Yeah, but he was a nice young man before he was locked up in Guantanamo!</blockquo

He probably became radicalised inside.

glw · January 2017

isam said:
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/818142484610109441

The good thing about him bunking off to Syria is that we can now drop a bomb on him without too many questions being asked.

Sunil_Prasannan · January 2017

Ishmael_Z said:

David_Evershed said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Pagan said:

Too often though it is used as a device because the speaker knows they won't listen, and the reason they won't listen is because while it is something the speaker has a bee in their bonnet over the actual figures will make most go meh. The health campaigners are particularly prone to this with their scares, they know people will quite sensibly not be to bothered about an increase in risk from 0.01 to 0.02 percent so instead go with the doubles your risk line.

Not sure what we do about it as it is far too embedded now
On the other hand, relative percentages are sometimes more truthful than absolute ones. If interest rates fall from 2% to 1% that is "only" a drop of 1%, but to someone looking to live off the interest on a nest-egg it is a drop in their income of 50%. What I can't work out is what the general rule is which determines whether the relative or absolute percentage is more informative.
If you are given the absolute figures you can always work out the relative figures.

But not vice versa.
That is a good point, if you are capable of doing the math.

Maths

Pagan · January 2017

Omnium said:
Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.

Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.

@Plato, @Pagan
I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?

how about just saying eating albatrosses will raise your risk from 0.1 to 0,5. Then people can make up their own mind whether they feel the value of eating albatross is worth the risk. Saying merely it will make you 5 times more likely is pure fear mongering

tlg86 · January 2017

The fish is being squished in Pittsburgh.

Morris_Dancer · January 2017

Mr. 86, that sounds like a subtle code.

No enormo-haddock are currently stationed in Pittsburgh.

Morris_Dancer · January 2017

Interesting piece on Cyprus negotiations here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38544859

Floater · January 2017

glw said:

isam said:
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/818142484610109441
The good thing about him bunking off to Syria is that we can now drop a bomb on him without too many questions being asked.

Mr Corbyn might have a question or two..........

williamglenn · January 2017

Grillo wants to abandon UKIP.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/idCAKBN14S0HN?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The consequences of what has already happened and the conseque

Comments