politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories lose all FIVE seats they were defending in party’s wors

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Good old SLab, they never* let you down.

https://twitter.com/davieclegg/status/972085375916298240

*always

Could have been worse, they could have called it the Keir Starmer awards

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/972110450660954113

Ikea Hardy.

Built a political movement.

Out of a flat pack.

Floater said:

OldKingCole said:

MarkHopkins said:

OldKingCole said:

Apols if this has been posted earlier, but Robert Peston is complainig that the Luxemburg has summed up the British Brexit position better than he ever could.

‘They were in with a load of opt-outs. Now they are out and want a load of opt-ins.’;

At the (non-political) discussion group I go to someone commented, to agreement, yesterday that we’re proud to be British but ashamed of our present Government.

We didn't have a 'load' of opt-outs, that was the problem!

The Euro? Personally, when I join a club I observe the rules.

When we joined the club that wasn't a rule

Fair point.

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bugger, he's a briliant judge.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/972102966881726465

What a fight over the nomination that will be. This is when Trump will nominate Sarah Palin to SCOTUS.

Trump's going to nominate Roy Moore.

or Melania.

Or Ivanka.

Or himself.

I am the best lawyer and judge, the best, just the best ever.

Everybody says it....

148grss said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bugger, he's a briliant judge.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/972102966881726465

Replacement before the mid terms?

Don't think this is true: I think the GOP Senator is worried he's gonna lose to a Dem and wants to make voters think a Supreme Court seat is in the running.

He's certainly under a lot of pressure in Nevada. About the only sitting Republican to be clearly in that category.

marke09 said:

Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard: CON 43 (+3) LAB 42 (=) LD 6 (-3) UKIP 2 (-2) Fieldwork 2nd-7th Mar (changes vs 19th-23rd Jan) N=1,012

I think we have a new Gold Standard.

Floater said:

OldKingCole said:

MarkHopkins said:

OldKingCole said:

Apols if this has been posted earlier, but Robert Peston is complainig that the Luxemburg has summed up the British Brexit position better than he ever could.

‘They were in with a load of opt-outs. Now they are out and want a load of opt-ins.’;

At the (non-political) discussion group I go to someone commented, to agreement, yesterday that we’re proud to be British but ashamed of our present Government.

We didn't have a 'load' of opt-outs, that was the problem!

The Euro? Personally, when I join a club I observe the rules.

When we joined the club that wasn't a rule

Economic and monetary union was the policy before we joined.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/oct/23/european-communities-summit-conference-1

The main decision of the summit conference [in 1972] was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and monetary union; and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.

148grss said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

148grss said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bugger, he's a briliant judge.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/972102966881726465

Replacement before the mid terms?

Don't think this is true: I think the GOP Senator is worried he's gonna lose to a Dem and wants to make voters think a Supreme Court seat is in the running.

He's certainly under a lot of pressure in Nevada. About the only sitting Republican to be clearly in that category.

Arizona is another one that might go blue, especially if McCain also retires. The open seat Flake is leaving might get Arpaio as the GOP nominee.

I think you mean "Sheriff Joe"!!

But yes. Flake's seat is the reason I said "sitting Republican" - there are very few easily winnable seats.

We had some useful, if flawed, polling on potential Dem->Rep seats. Were any Rep->Dem seats polled?

TheWhiteRabbit said:

148grss said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

148grss said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bugger, he's a briliant judge.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/972102966881726465

Replacement before the mid terms?

Don't think this is true: I think the GOP Senator is worried he's gonna lose to a Dem and wants to make voters think a Supreme Court seat is in the running.

He's certainly under a lot of pressure in Nevada. About the only sitting Republican to be clearly in that category.

Arizona is another one that might go blue, especially if McCain also retires. The open seat Flake is leaving might get Arpaio as the GOP nominee.

I think you mean "Sheriff Joe"!!

But yes. Flake's seat is the reason I said "sitting Republican" - there are very few easily winnable seats.

We had some useful, if flawed, polling on potential Dem->Rep seats. Were any Rep->Dem seats polled?

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/2018-senate-race-rankings-january/index.html

How do these people know PBers so well :P

https://twitter.com/sethdmichaels/status/971797364066455553

Mr. Paris, that's very unfair. Some of the older MPs are dreadful too (Abbott springs to mind).

The Trump boom continues to pick up steam: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43345362

Nailed on.

RobD said:

marke09 said:

Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard: CON 43 (+3) LAB 42 (=) LD 6 (-3) UKIP 2 (-2) Fieldwork 2nd-7th Mar (changes vs 19th-23rd Jan) N=1,012

I think we have a new Gold Standard.

Except Ipsos MORI had CON with 8% lead at GE17. It was actually 2.55

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/972110317454012416

I did not see any free seats on that train.....I did not know that man was a spy...

Nothing will perturb the faithful who value his integrity.

As noel Gallagher said at the height of oasis fame that he could have recorded an album of him farting and the faithful would still have bought a million copies...personally by the third album I think he was testing that theory out!

Labour 2018

https://order-order.com/2018/03/09/communist-flag-flying-stalybridge-labour-club-today/

TheWhiteRabbit said:

DavidL said:

The Trump boom continues to pick up steam: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43345362

Nailed on.

The cynic in me assumes the world will crash when the US overheats, and that day may be drawing closer...

After a pretty uninspired decade after the financial crash the US has the capacity to grow for a very considerable time yet, especially with a President who may be a Republican but doesn't give a monkey's about the deficit. I think they will grow strongly until the second half of his second term when things will probably have gone less than optimally in so many other ways.

Another quiet afternoon on the front line of Brexit at Soubry towers:

https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/972129781964734464

Corbynites preparing the Grand Excuse for GE 2020 already:

https://twitter.com/_BenvdM/status/972135544934338561

Saudi Arabia has moved closer to a deal to buy 48 Typhoon fighter jets, UK aerospace giant BAE Systems has said.

david_herdson said:

tpfkar said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

Anorak said:

HYUFD said:

Anorak said:

The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.

[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]

Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.

Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket

The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.

But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...

Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.

Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.

Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:

Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11.

According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.

Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!

As it's Friday afternoon, I wonder which 12 Tories. Who would the Tory leader have been?

Hague, probably.

When I did the Calculus with this polling, Hague loses his N York seat.

Mortimer said:

david_herdson said:

tpfkar said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

Anorak said:

HYUFD said:

Anorak said:

The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.

[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]

Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.

Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket

The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.

But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...

Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.

Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.

Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:

Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11.

According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.

Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!

As it's Friday afternoon, I wonder which 12 Tories. Who would the Tory leader have been?

Hague, probably.

Maude?

Robert Walter? Dorset North.

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

tpfkar said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

Anorak said:

HYUFD said:

Anorak said:

The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.

[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]

Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.

Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket

The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.

But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...

Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.

Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.

Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:

Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11.

According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.

Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!

As it's Friday afternoon, I wonder which 12 Tories. Who would the Tory leader have been?

Hague, probably.

When I did the Calculus with this polling, Hague loses his N York seat.

In practice, I expect the Conservatives would have retained 30-40 seats on those numbers.

Totally off topic, one of amazon prime better origin series is back today with season 2 of sneaky Pete.

All discussion on polling scores for the Big Two at “meaning” popularity or unpopularity or it’s-only-anti-Labour/Conservative or only-because-everyone-else-is-low or whatever are just opinions to keep up morale/worry yourselves.

We don’t know how deep or broad anyone’s polling score actually is. It could be based on fear of the other – which could evaporate when something we didn’t consider gets closed down (ie McDonnell pledges not to do something or other, or May pledges to do something else), or whatever. It could evaporate with a change of leader, or a change of some deep-seated belief in one or other leader.

We have an adversarial democracy (as opposed to the alternative of consensual democracy) and the alienation of the public from the political system, the name-calling, virtue-signalling-to-own-side-while-insulting-the-other-one and intense tribalism (to be fair, there’s always some level of tribalism in any political system), and inability to judge actual popularity rather than “shit, but they’re not the other fuckers at least” is inherent. It does make it harder to judge feedback from the public, but that’s the price we pay for it. It can get worse – we just have to look over the Pond to see how much worse.

Anorak said:

Andy_Cooke said:

logical_song said:

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

Anorak said:

HYUFD said:

Anorak said:

The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.

[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]

Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.

Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket

The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.

But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...

Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.

Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.

Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:

Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11.

According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.

Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!

How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?

603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on
Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11
- doesn't look fair.

When has "fairness" ever been a key element of FPTP?

Since every constituency followed the same rules, and the constituencies were defined by an independent apolitical body?

Define "fair", then.
You can quite easily have the same polling scores for the Big Two resulting in anything from a majority for one to a majority for the other with every form of hung Parliament in between. The disproportionate and inconsistent effects are a lot less to do with constituency size these days and more to do with other factors.

rottenborough said:

Corbynites preparing the Grand Excuse for GE 2020 already:

https://twitter.com/_BenvdM/status/972135544934338561

Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.

Andy_Cooke said:

Anorak said:

Andy_Cooke said:

logical_song said:

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

Anorak said:

The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.

But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...

Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.

Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.

Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:

Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11.

According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.

Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!

How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?

603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on
Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11
- doesn't look fair.

When has "fairness" ever been a key element of FPTP?

Since every constituency followed the same rules, and the constituencies were defined by an independent apolitical body?

Define "fair", then.
You can quite easily have the same polling scores for the Big Two resulting in anything from a majority for one to a majority for the other with every form of hung Parliament in between. The disproportionate and inconsistent effects are a lot less to do with constituency size these days and more to do with other factors.

I'd define fair as everyone playing by the same rules, and those rules being transparent and straightforward to understand.

Plenty of other systems give what some would define as unfair outcomes - usually the losers, funnily enough. There's a good reason why PR is not used worldwide, and it's not because 'the elite' are opposed to it.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Corbynites preparing the Grand Excuse for GE 2020 already:

https://twitter.com/_BenvdM/status/972135544934338561

Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.

The only really interesting bit of that vice news special was how in team twats version of reality every media outlet was biased against them, including the guardian, and by the end even the corbnyista supporting vice journalist had become part of the shit list for daring to ask one or two tough questions.

I know Corbynistas who are adamant the DUP are effectively terrorists. When I asked for evidence, they pointed to Arlene Foster meeting with and sharing platforms with paramilitary leaders. I pointed out Corbyn met with the IRA's leaders and shared platforms with Jihadis. They said I was repeating Tory smears that had been debunked. There is no reasoning with these people.

How I long for a centre left party that supports democracy and human rights consistently.

Anorak said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Anorak said:

Andy_Cooke said:

logical_song said:

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

HHemmelig said:

Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.

Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:

Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11.

According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.

Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!

How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?

603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on
Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11
- doesn't look fair.

When has "fairness" ever been a key element of FPTP?

Since every constituency followed the same rules, and the constituencies were defined by an independent apolitical body?

Define "fair", then.
You can quite easily have the same polling scores for the Big Two resulting in anything from a majority for one to a majority for the other with every form of hung Parliament in between. The disproportionate and inconsistent effects are a lot less to do with constituency size these days and more to do with other factors.

I'd define fair as everyone playing by the same rules, and those rules being transparent and straightforward to understand.

Plenty of other systems give what some would define as unfair outcomes - usually the losers, funnily enough. There's a good reason why PR is not used worldwide, and it's not because 'the elite' are opposed to it.

So what would be "unfair" over any of the results we've seen or ever projected. If everyone's playing by the same rules under the same Electoral Commission? Albeit we do see that the rules are not necessarily straightforward to understand - which is why we get people complaining about one side getting majorities on less of the vote than the other, or similar vote shares giving widely dissimilar outputs. After all, 63% for a leading party, on exactly the same vote share, can be (depending on geographical distribution of the vote) anything from just slipping under a majority to winning each and every seat available, can't it? What would be "unfair" about any result between these?

On losers calling things unfair - yeah, anyone can rationalise anything. Including those who win under existing systems - it's startling how often those who win under certain rules can rationalise those rules as being the only right way things can ever be.

HenryGManson said:

O/T given Jacob Rees Mogg's praise for Damian Hinds in this Politico interview with him talking up the Education Secretary's leadership qualities, the 66/1 with Ladbrokes and Corals for Hinds now looks very big. https://www.politico.eu/article/jacob-rees-mogg-maoist/

I read that as "Jacob Rees Mogg Moist". Thought that he must be a big fan of Hinds!

Elliot said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Corbynites preparing the Grand Excuse for GE 2020 already:

https://twitter.com/_BenvdM/status/972135544934338561

Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.

The only really interesting bit of that vice news special was how in team twats version of reality every media outlet was biased against them, including the guardian, and by the end even the corbnyista supporting vice journalist had become part of the shit list for daring to ask one or two tough questions.

I know Corbynistas who are adamant the DUP are effectively terrorists. When I asked for evidence, they pointed to Arlene Foster meeting with and sharing platforms with paramilitary leaders. I pointed out Corbyn met with the IRA's leaders and shared platforms with Jihadis. They said I was repeating Tory smears that had been debunked. There is no reasoning with these people.

How I long for a centre left party that supports democracy and human rights consistently.

There is no point trying to reason with the cultists. They are lost to reason.

Looks to me like last nights winners though only by a nose were the Inds and the libs

rottenborough said:

Elliot said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

Corbynites preparing the Grand Excuse for GE 2020 already:

https://twitter.com/_BenvdM/status/972135544934338561

Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.

The only really interesting bit of that vice news special was how in team twats version of reality every media outlet was biased against them, including the guardian, and by the end even the corbnyista supporting vice journalist had become part of the shit list for daring to ask one or two tough questions.

I know Corbynistas who are adamant the DUP are effectively terrorists. When I asked for evidence, they pointed to Arlene Foster meeting with and sharing platforms with paramilitary leaders. I pointed out Corbyn met with the IRA's leaders and shared platforms with Jihadis. They said I was repeating Tory smears that had been debunked. There is no reasoning with these people.

How I long for a centre left party that supports democracy and human rights consistently.

There is no point trying to reason with the cultists. They are lost to reason.

Corybn is Trump, Momentum are the Red Hats. I don't know that the Corbynista /r/The_Donald is but I'm sure there is one.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bugger, he's a briliant judge.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/972102966881726465

What do you think of Clement Goldstone?

Floater said:

Trigger warning

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/03/09/much-madman-trump-delivering-promises/

Two clowns tallking to each other. What's surprising? They've got a lot in common

williamglenn said:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1daln9otjj/TimesResults_180305_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

The significant thing in this week's YouGov Brexit figures is that more people think the government is doing an ok job of negotiations at the same time as more people think Brexit should be softened or abandoned. Realism is slowly setting in.

Softening Brexit still 30 points behind status quo.

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1daln9otjj/TimesResults_180305_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

The significant thing in this week's YouGov Brexit figures is that more people think the government is doing an ok job of negotiations at the same time as more people think Brexit should be softened or abandoned. Realism is slowly setting in.

Softening Brexit still 30 points behind status quo.

Soften Brexit + Stop Brexit + Second referendum = 44%
Carry on = 41%

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1daln9otjj/TimesResults_180305_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

The significant thing in this week's YouGov Brexit figures is that more people think the government is doing an ok job of negotiations at the same time as more people think Brexit should be softened or abandoned. Realism is slowly setting in.

Softening Brexit still 30 points behind status quo.

Soften Brexit + Stop Brexit + Second referendum = 44%
Carry on = 41%

Don’t you just love FPTP!

RoyalBlue said:

The parties continue to be evenly matched. The next election is wide open.

Maybe we won’t go full Venezuela.

If Corbyn does manage it - the reactions on this website will be something to behold.

DavidL said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

DavidL said:

The Trump boom continues to pick up steam: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43345362

Nailed on.

The cynic in me assumes the world will crash when the US overheats, and that day may be drawing closer...

After a pretty uninspired decade after the financial crash the US has the capacity to grow for a very considerable time yet, especially with a President who may be a Republican but doesn't give a monkey's about the deficit. I think they will grow strongly until the second half of his second term when things will probably have gone less than optimally in so many other ways.

The problem is that Trump is getting the US economy firing the traditional way: i.e., he's using fiscal policy to light a fire under consumer spending.

Nothing wrong with that, except that the US already over-consumes and under-saves. He'll also find his two goals are incompatible: you can't have both booming consumer spending and a reducing trade deficit.

And attempts to bandage over this, but applying one set of tariffs here (steel, quick!), followed by another (oh no, our deficit in cars is getting worse), will probably only succeed in making the US economy less imbalanced.

There's another problem for Trump. The boom he's engineering is widening the growth gap between the coasts and the interior. We're seeing it here in LA, but it's not helping so much in Ohio (yet). That may change, but if it does not, then will Trump get the credit from the coasts?

TGOHF said:

RobD said:

David_Evershed said:

ONS figures out about pension liabilities.

"The £7.6 trillion includes £5.3 trillion of pension entitlements that were the responsibility of central and local government, the largest element of which came from State Pension entitlements (£4 trillion), with the rest (£1.3 trillion) coming from public sector employee pensions."

Most state pension laibilities are of course unfunded in that there is no ringfenced government pot of money set aside for the laibilities. Unfunded pensions have to be paid as they arise out of future taxation.

"The remaining £2.3 trillion were private sector employee pension entitlements, with the majority (£2 trillion) due to defined benefit pensions.

There was also £450 billion in individual personal pensions in 2015, making a total of £8 trillion – around four times GDP."

UNFUNDED GOV'T PENSION LIABILITIES REPRESENT NEARLY 50% OF GDP.

Source
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/articles/pensionsinthenationalaccountsafullerpictureoftheuksfundedandunfundedpensionobligations/2010to2015#trends-over-time-government-managed-schemes

I wonder how long until they go to a defined contribution scheme?

For the state pension ? That would be radical.

All public sector employee pensions should be defined contributions - if not it's borrowing by another name.

Yeah, I was referring to civil servant pensions.

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

Floater said:

Trigger warning

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/03/09/much-madman-trump-delivering-promises/

It's Tim Stanley.

How The Telegraph got rid of SeanT and kept Tim Stanley and AEP is beyond me.

Don’t read the telegraph much these days but always thought AEP was interesting to read.

No. He's useless.

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

DavidL said:

The Trump boom continues to pick up steam: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43345362

Nailed on.

The cynic in me assumes the world will crash when the US overheats, and that day may be drawing closer...

After a pretty uninspired decade after the financial crash the US has the capacity to grow for a very considerable time yet, especially with a President who may be a Republican but doesn't give a monkey's about the deficit. I think they will grow strongly until the second half of his second term when things will probably have gone less than optimally in so many other ways.

The problem is that Trump is getting the US economy firing the traditional way: i.e., he's using fiscal policy to light a fire under consumer spending.

Nothing wrong with that, except that the US already over-consumes and under-saves. He'll also find his two goals are incompatible: you can't have both booming consumer spending and a reducing trade deficit.

And attempts to bandage over this, but applying one set of tariffs here (steel, quick!), followed by another (oh no, our deficit in cars is getting worse), will probably only succeed in making the US economy less imbalanced.

There's another problem for Trump. The boom he's engineering is widening the growth gap between the coasts and the interior. We're seeing it here in LA, but it's not helping so much in Ohio (yet). That may change, but if it does not, then will Trump get the credit from the coasts?

You really think Trump cares about the trade deficit? He cares about being seen to do something that helps the people that elected him (even if it doesn't). He will be very happy to be re-elected on a consumer boom, albeit the USA is also seeing an upturn in production right now.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

Floater said:

Trigger warning

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/03/09/much-madman-trump-delivering-promises/

It's Tim Stanley.

How The Telegraph got rid of SeanT and kept Tim Stanley and AEP is beyond me.

Don’t read the telegraph much these days but always thought AEP was interesting to read.

No. He's useless.

Oh I don't know, he's a very useful contra-indicator.

I guess if you look at it that way lol.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

Floater said:

Trigger warning

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/03/09/much-madman-trump-delivering-promises/

It's Tim Stanley.

How The Telegraph got rid of SeanT and kept Tim Stanley and AEP is beyond me.

Don’t read the telegraph much these days but always thought AEP was interesting to read.

No. He's useless.

Oh I don't know, he's a very useful contra-indicator.

Good to know a WTO Brexit is off the menu.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/01/eu-refuses-soft-brexit-must-invoke-wto-immediately/

Sean_F said:

According to Andrew Teale, Labour are in complete disarray on Bolton Council, and this result (and a loss to the Tories a couple of weeks ago) confirms it.

Also holding Bolton West at the general election was arguably one of the Tories' best results, when they were losing similar seats elsewhere like Bury North.

Trying to be fair to him AEP's articles do sometimes contain some interesting statistics. Its just that they usually mean almost the opposite of what he thinks they do.

TGOHF said:

Cracking headline/pun

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/09/jeremy-corbyn-should-working-brexit-many-not-eu/

"Jeremy Corbyn should want a Brexit that works for the many, not the EU"

Not as good as yesterday’s “For the many, not the Jew”

Have we already had the Ipsos Mori poll? It has exactly the same headline numbers as the ICM poll a few days ago.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/972130897486065664