politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast: Reshuffles, Oprah and exclus

CarlottaVance said:

A slightly longer reply than that given in Arkell vs Presdram - though the sentiment is identical:

https://www.scribd.com/document/368696619/Letter-to-C-Harder-001

David_Evershed said:

I noted that they were standing on the pavement when the photo was taken, so not on government property but council property.

David_Evershed said:

Huffington Post says

Theresa May is facing fresh reshuffle embarrassment amid claims that she breached the Ministerial Code with her Downing Street PR stunt to promote the Tory party’s new top ranks.

Labour has written to the Prime Minister to complain that she was in clear breach of rules which forbid the use of any Government and taxpayer-funded property for party political purposes, HuffPost can reveal.

May led a parade of Conservative party chairmen and vice-chairmen in Downing Street on Monday as she started her shake-up of ministerial ranks.

The Conservative Party subsequently retweeted the picture on both their main twitter account and the Conservative Press account.

But just one of the appointees, party chairman Brandon Lewis, was given a Government post and the rest were all party jobs.

Section 6 of the Ministerial Code – which was updated only this week - says that Government property should not be used for “party political activities”, a strict rule that carries sanctions if breached.

Tory spokesperson says some party activity is allowed at 10 Downing St.

I noted that they were standing on the pavement when the photo was taken, so not on government property but council property.

Nigelb said:

FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade.
The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).

Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO.
I'd probably double that.

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Second! Like Remain & Corbyn.

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

A slightly longer reply than that given in Arkell vs Presdram - though the sentiment is identical:

https://www.scribd.com/document/368696619/Letter-to-C-Harder-001

That's quite a good reply :-)

Sandpit said:

And as could entirely be expected, the Oprah backlash begins:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/oprah-winfrey-fame-hungry-peddler-fake-empathy-would-terrible/

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

And as could entirely be expected, the Oprah backlash begins:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/oprah-winfrey-fame-hungry-peddler-fake-empathy-would-terrible/

I think you're giving a little too much credit to the Telegraph.
Rather more liberal publications (Slate, for example) have already expressed serious reservations. That a Telegraph opinion writer should publish a disobliging piece is rather less surprising, and of little consequence - after all, it's Democrats who will decide the fate of her would be candidacy.

(FWIW, I think her encouragement of crank opinions on for example vaccines ought to be disqualificatory.)

Nigelb said:

China not hugely enthusiastic about The Last Jedi:
http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001531/chinas-die-hard-star-wars-fans-respond-to-last-jedi-flop
The most upvoted review complains that “the whole film really insults the IQ of its audience,” and demands to know how the universe could possibly be ruled by such an incompetent Galactic Empire. “In Star Wars, it seems only Darth Vader had a brain — it’s such a shame he’s already dead,” the reviewer concludes.

CarlottaVance said:

Carney +10 - the only positive.

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade.
The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).

Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO.
I'd probably double that.

Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.

I'm reasonably well aware of current research (Novartis, for example has a vaccine in PII), and there is great science being done, but I think you are underestimating both the time to develop these therapies, and the likelihood of failure.
As an example, the Novartis trial is recruiting patients now; they don't expect meaningful result since for at least five years. And that's a single stage of a trial. (An Alzheimer's vaccine was trialled and abandoned as far back as 2002.)

I don't denigrate any of the efforts here - indeed given the cost and relatively low chances of success, the persistence of some companies in funding research has been heroic - and every failure provides more data, but similar optimism has been expressed over the last decade or more, only to be crushed.

Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade.
The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).

Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO.
I'd probably double that.

Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.

I'm reasonably well aware of current research (Novartis, for example has a vaccine in PII), and there is great science being done, but I think you are underestimating both the time to develop these therapies, and the likelihood of failure.
As an example, the Novartis trial is recruiting patients now; they don't expect meaningful result since for at least five years. And that's a single stage of a trial. (An Alzheimer's vaccine was trialled and abandoned as far back as 2002.)



Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.

NVS doesn’t think their product will work. Of course likelihood is low - but I’ve looked at some of the blinded data - obviously only trends and correlations - from other trials and it looks exciting

Emphasises the difficulty of medico-pharmacaceutical research. Far too easy to get misleading data from early trials.

I suspect, only suspect, because I’m well out of touch now, that we might get somewhere on Alzheimers fairly soon, but it’ll be around the prevention, or prevention of further deterioration. We’re a long way from reversal.

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

rkrkrk said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

I don’t think the electorate much cares about trade deals. But in any case - it will probably be decades before we have more trade deals than the EU.

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

I don’t think the electorate much cares about trade deals. But in any case - it will probably be decades before we have more trade deals than the EU.

It could be a long time before we have any trade deals worth speaking of, other than the exit compromise with the EU if we get one.

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade.
The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).

Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO.
I'd probably double that.

Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.

I'm reasonably well aware of current research (Novartis, for example has a vaccine in PII), and there is great science being done, but I think you are underestimating both the time to develop these therapies, and the likelihood of failure.
As an example, the Novartis trial is recruiting patients now; they don't expect meaningful result since for at least five years. And that's a single stage of a trial. (An Alzheimer's vaccine was trialled and abandoned as far back as 2002.)

I don't denigrate any of the efforts here - indeed given the cost and relatively low chances of success, the persistence of some companies in funding research has been heroic - and every failure provides more data, but similar optimism has been expressed over the last decade or more, only to be crushed.

Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.

NVS doesn’t think their product will work. Of course likelihood is low - but I’ve looked at some of the blinded data...

old_labour said:

David_Evershed said:

Huffington Post says

Theresa May is facing fresh reshuffle embarrassment amid claims that she breached the Ministerial Code with her Downing Street PR stunt to promote the Tory party’s new top ranks.

Labour has written to the Prime Minister to complain that she was in clear breach of rules which forbid the use of any Government and taxpayer-funded property for party political purposes, HuffPost can reveal.

May led a parade of Conservative party chairmen and vice-chairmen in Downing Street on Monday as she started her shake-up of ministerial ranks.

The Conservative Party subsequently retweeted the picture on both their main twitter account and the Conservative Press account.

But just one of the appointees, party chairman Brandon Lewis, was given a Government post and the rest were all party jobs.

Section 6 of the Ministerial Code – which was updated only this week - says that Government property should not be used for “party political activities”, a strict rule that carries sanctions if breached.

Tory spokesperson says some party activity is allowed at 10 Downing St.

I noted that they were standing on the pavement when the photo was taken, so not on government property but council property.

Council property to which the council tax payers of Westminster are denied access.

NickPalmer said:

85-year-old convicted criminal doing well in GOP Arizona nomination race:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/az/arizona_senate_republican_primary-6235.html

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.

My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.

My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

China not hugely enthusiastic about The Last Jedi:
http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001531/chinas-die-hard-star-wars-fans-respond-to-last-jedi-flop
The most upvoted review complains that “the whole film really insults the IQ of its audience,” and demands to know how the universe could possibly be ruled by such an incompetent Galactic Empire. “In Star Wars, it seems only Darth Vader had a brain — it’s such a shame he’s already dead,” the reviewer concludes.

That's hilarious. I hope the Daily Mash make something of that.

OchEye said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

Why should they? Most people allowed the numpty Leavers to rant for many years, before they were able to put their "facts" before the UK electorate, and for whatever reason, won the referendum. The consensus now is that we will leave the EU. The how, why and when is under discussion, but why the hell should people not be allowed to have a different opinion and voice, or is that only the right of the Pure BeLeavers who dislike the problems and inconsistencies of their arguments being pointed out to them? This country is a democracy of sorts with reasonable freedom of speech and thought, not some alternative that a few would like it to be...

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.

That depends on whether our economy is bigger than the country we are negotiating with and whether they export more to us than we do to them

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.

My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.

It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.

My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.

It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.

We need to do everything we can to foster free trade, and not give those who want to tie us to an ever-diminishing part of the world that we voted to leave, the opportunity to get us back in any time soon.

What free trade do you envisage that will be freer than what we have at the moment and that will deliver greater standards of living than we have at the moment? We are going to have to do a huge number of trade deals to get even remotely close to what we will give up by leaving the single market. That, of course, is why when push comes to shove we will be leaving in name only.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, that's actually a pretty good result for May given Corbyn can appear to face both ways whereas she has to actually try to thread the needle.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament

You forget to mention that Boris's score is down there with the other political has-beens.

Anazina said:

CarlottaVance said:

Second! Like Remain & Corbyn.

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

A slightly longer reply than that given in Arkell vs Presdram - though the sentiment is identical:

https://www.scribd.com/document/368696619/Letter-to-C-Harder-001

Why have you got a picture of Theresa May waving a lightsaber as your avatar?

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.

That depends on whether our economy is bigger than the country we are negotiating with and whether they export more to us than we do to them

Yep - if we are going to focus on seeking trade deals that will make very little difference to anything at all, we could get some with countries on relatively decent terms.

Of course China exports more to us than we do to them and we are a bigger economy than Switzerland and export only a little more to them than they do to us

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.

Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.

My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.

It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.

We need to do everything we can to foster free trade, and not give those who want to tie us to an ever-diminishing part of the world that we voted to leave, the opportunity to get us back in any time soon.

What free trade do you envisage that will be freer than what omes to shove we will be leaving in name only.

The customs union you mean, Norway is in the single market but outside the customs union in EFTA

No, I mean the single market. Leaving the customs union is just the icing on the cake.

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:

May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.

Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?

Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him.
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.

Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

And there’s no “probably” about Blair being the worst person to front rejoin. “Unequivocaly” is nearer the mark

Possible exception of Nigel Farage?

Jonathan said:

This Young stuff is striking. Either due diligence isn't a thing or there is tacit approval for his position on certain issues.

John_M said:

Jonathan said:

This Young stuff is striking. Either due diligence isn't a thing or there is tacit approval for his position on certain issues.

Good morning all.

I'm (as always) going to plump for cock-up over conspiracy....

HYUFD said:

53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

HYUFD said:

53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion

Jonathan said:

This Young stuff is striking. Either due diligence isn't a thing or there is tacit approval for his position on certain issues.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

williamglenn said:

German economy posts strongest growth for 6 years at 2.2% in 2017.

Yesterday it was suggested we had grown by 0.6% last quarter, so that is equal to 2.4% annual increase

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

53% back paying more National Insurance to fund the NHS yougov finds but only 42% back paying more income tax to pay for the NHS

https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129

This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.

That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion

Should have written it on a bus.

It was a serious question - do you have any idea how much tax rates need to rise for tge 33 billion annual increase