Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With 23 days to go punters make it a 21% chance that the UK wi

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited October 8 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With 23 days to go punters make it a 21% chance that the UK will leave the EU this month

This is all getting very tight. A new working day starts and there are just 23 to go before the article 50 deadline comes into being with the UK either leaving the EU or a further extension is agreed to.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,702
    edited October 8
    LibDems the Trick or Treat party!

    And I may be the first first today.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324
    edited October 8
    After a flick through the last thread this looked particularly interesting

    This could make for interesting electoral campaign dynamics:



  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324
    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,546


    Sit calmly back in your seats and let our experienced pilot handle things from here...
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    Yes, that contradiction had passed me by. Fintan O'Toole really is one of the better writers around.
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 700
    edited October 8
    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    edited October 8

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.

    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    Firstly, are you talking about five percent or five percentage points?
    E.g. if there's a 20% chance of something, adding 5% makes it 21%, but adding 5 percentage points makes it 25%
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 4,499

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.

    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    If you are still on PB - would you like to make it clear whether those percentages are multiplicative or additive ("another 5 percentage points", say)? IANAE but for instance the above surgery would seem to be equivalent to a basic risk of death within 10 years of 18% (100% - 82%).

    If these treatments are additive - then adding say radiotherapy would reduce this to 13%.

    If they are multiplicative - then adding radiotherapy would reduce this to only about 17%.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,561
    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Agreed and you can get evens at Ladbrokes on her holding her seat.
  • Noo said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.

    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    Firstly, are you talking about five percent or fiver percentage points?
    E.g. if there's a 20% chance of something, adding 5% makes it 21%, but adding 5 percentage points makes it 25%
    I've got to be honest and say I don't know.
    It was presented in a barchart form (very Lib Dem!). The first segment was the big 82%, with the other figures on top.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,090
    I've just put a big slab of money on Britain not leaving the EU on 31st October.

    By which I mean I've booked a holiday in Europe, returning on 1st November. To a provincial airport, at least, not Heathrow.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    I can't help you with the odds but having had chemotherapy twice I found nothing to fear from it. The only side effect which I noticed was something which is known as 'chemo-brain'. Being in the whacky world of advertising this wasn't much of a problem-possibly even an advantage-but had I been a neuro surgeon and knowing what I know now I probably wouldn't have gone ahead
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,938

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    To speak purely about statistics, and ignoring the specific subject matter.

    You are looking for good outcome X, and not bad outcome Y.

    Without mitigation Z, X is an 82% probability and Y is 18%.

    With mitigation Z, X becomes an 87% probability, and Y 13%.

    If you look at the numbers of Y only, the change from 18% to 13% is roughly 30%.

    So mitigation Z makes your undesired outcome Y 30% less likely to happen, and it’s on this basis that you need to evaluate the costs (financial and intangible) of the mitigation.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 20,384

    Noo said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.

    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    Firstly, are you talking about five percent or fiver percentage points?
    E.g. if there's a 20% chance of something, adding 5% makes it 21%, but adding 5 percentage points makes it 25%
    I've got to be honest and say I don't know.
    It was presented in a barchart form (very Lib Dem!). The first segment was the big 82%, with the other figures on top.
    Having had and seen friends (still with us!) opt for chemo I would say anything that increases the survival rate is very much worth considering. From what they - the friends- say, chemo is horrible, debilitating, and depressing. But this is your wife and you are there for and with her.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Agreed and you can get evens at Ladbrokes on her holding her seat.
    Let's hope they can find a way of making her central to the campaign. Perhaps a PPB 'Why I joined the Lib Dems'. She's impressive enough to carry it.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,132
    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months. All she has now done is resort to clambering into the lifeboat when she had no other choice.
  • RobinWiggsRobinWiggs Posts: 380
    edited October 8
    Noo said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.

    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    Firstly, are you talking about five percent or five percentage points?
    E.g. if there's a 20% chance of something, adding 5% makes it 21%, but adding 5 percentage points makes it 25%
    It is percentage points. I know. MrsW has gone through the same very recently.

    It is not as simple as you suggest - there are many other factors including tumour type, lymph node involvement, age at diagnosis, tumour size, whether screening-dtetected or not. General all-cause survival at 10 years is about 50% for surgery-only for my wife. A variety of adjuvant therapies increase this significantly. Remember, survival to 10 years does not mean disease-free survival.

    In my own humble view, you take everything that is available to increase survival rates. You also need to do your own research as there are a range of studies ongoing that are not included in standard breast regimes that will be in the future. Some of them are as simple as taking aspirin and statins

    https://breast.predict.nhs.uk/ is a great resource.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 24,446

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    TWS , likely it will mean your 5% will add roughly 2% to your 82% , ie a twentieth, your 2% will be roughly 1% so if you took all 3 options it would be roughly 5% giving you circa 87%
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,090

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months. All she has now done is resort to clambering into the lifeboat when she had no other choice.
    Shes going for the full English. Just needs to represent the Greens and Labour before an election is called and shes done it. God speed Heidi, may the ants in your pants never let you settle for too long in one place
  • RobinWiggsRobinWiggs Posts: 380
    edited October 8
    malcolmg said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    TWS , likely it will mean your 5% will add roughly 2% to your 82% , ie a twentieth, your 2% will be roughly 1% so if you took all 3 options it would be roughly 5% giving you circa 87%
    No - they are additive percentage points. 82% plus 5% becomes 87%.

    But the data is complex, and many of the survival rates out to 15 years are predictive models and not based upon 15 years of real-world data. Otherwise how do you predict the survival impact of novel treatments today?

    If I wasn't personally affected, this would be a very interesting area.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324



    Sit calmly back in your seats and let our experienced pilot handle things from here...

    Very good. I've no doubt that the strongest card the opposition parties have is Boris Johnson. The voters-supporters and opponents alike-think he's an incorrigable liar. This might be being overshadowed in the polls at the moment by more pressing issues but I am 100% convinced that it will weigh very heavily during an election campaign.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,534

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    When did Nothern Ireland get annexed in to their country? I thought it was a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,120
    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
  • Noo said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.

    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    Firstly, are you talking about five percent or five percentage points?
    E.g. if there's a 20% chance of something, adding 5% makes it 21%, but adding 5 percentage points makes it 25%
    It is percentage points. I know. MrsW has gone through the same very recently.

    It is not as simple as you suggest - there are many other factors including tumour type, lymph node involvement, age at diagnosis, tumour size, whether screening-dtetected or not. General all-cause survival at 10 years is about 50% for surgery-only for my wife. A variety of adjuvant therapies increase this significantly. Remember, survival to 10 years does not mean disease-free survival.

    In my own humble view, you take everything that is available to increase survival rates. You also need to do your own research as they're are a range of studies ongoing that are not included in standard breast regimes that will be in the future.

    https://breast.predict.nhs.uk/ is a great resource.
    Thanks for that and understood. I hope Mrs W is on the up. These figures are for my wife, with the relevant factors thrown in. The consultant had a handy little app where it's spat the figures out. The lymph nodes were the deciding factor. I'm just trying to make a bit of sense of the figures.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200
    edited October 8
    Roger said:

    After a flick through the last thread this looked particularly interesting

    This could make for interesting electoral campaign dynamics:

    It is very interesting - though since when was Corbyn's policy 'ditch Brexit' ?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,132

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months.
    Correlation is not causation.
    Leaders should take at least some responsibility for the fortunes of their parties. The question I would ask her is why the Libs were not good enough for her back in February.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    Maybe but if Warren or Sanders were nominee on a socialist platform 42% would take the Democrats nearly down to McGovern or Mondale levels in the popular vote
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    My father just finished chemo on that basis, it is a 'belt and braces' approach but up to the patient as it is not easy
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months. All she has now done is resort to clambering into the lifeboat when she had no other choice.
    If they had all joined the LibDems when they departed their parties, it would have made a real splash. Now they are just a series of small pebbles, dropping into a roiling sea.

    They now appear to be without any political philosophy other than clinging on. Most will not hold their seats, meaning the LibDems will have to make ever more gains to make it look like they are not going backwards come election night.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    There are some very smart people on this site who’ll tell you what it all means. My immediate reaction is why the F hasn’t someone responsible for the treatment already done so? Throwing numbers at people and expecting them to make a decision is ridiculous and, I imagine, immensely stressful. You should not be put in this situation.

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,546
    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    After a flick through the last thread this looked particularly interesting

    This could make for interesting electoral campaign dynamics:

    It is very interesting - though since when was Corbyn's policy 'ditch Brexit' ?
    TBH I think most people assume 2nd ref under Labour would give a remain result. There is probably a good chance it would but very little in politics is 100% chance.

    Even if it didn't though we would probably be talking a softer Brexit which would come some way between the ditch Brexit and Conservative Brexit in terms of financial impact.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,534
    edited October 8
    Sandpit said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    To speak purely about statistics, and ignoring the specific subject matter.

    You are looking for good outcome X, and not bad outcome Y.

    Without mitigation Z, X is an 82% probability and Y is 18%.

    With mitigation Z, X becomes an 87% probability, and Y 13%.

    If you look at the numbers of Y only, the change from 18% to 13% is roughly 30%.

    So mitigation Z makes your undesired outcome Y 30% less likely to happen, and it’s on this basis that you need to evaluate the costs (financial and intangible) of the mitigation.
    Well said. The 82% is your baseline good scenario and the 5% is really close to 30% of what would otherwise be tragedy.

    Imagine if instead of talking about cancer we spoke about driving. If we say there is an 82% chance you wouldn't be involved in a fatal car crash in the next decade if you don't wear a seat belt, but that increases by 5% if seat belts are warn then that would mean seat belts are preventing 5/18 of what would otherwise be fatal accidents.

    Chemotherapy is more complicated than wearing a seat belt of course and you and your wife have my best wishes.
  • RobinWiggsRobinWiggs Posts: 380
    edited October 8

    Noo said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.

    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    Firstly, are you talking about five percent or five percentage points?
    E.g. if there's a 20% chance of something, adding 5% makes it 21%, but adding 5 percentage points makes it 25%
    It is percentage points. I know. MrsW has gone through the same very recently.

    It is not as simple as you suggest - there are many other factors including tumour type, lymph node involvement, age at diagnosis, tumour size, whether screening-dtetected or not. General all-cause survival at 10 years is about 50% for surgery-only for my wife. A variety of adjuvant therapies increase this significantly. Remember, survival to 10 years does not mean disease-free survival.

    In my own humble view, you take everything that is available to increase survival rates. You also need to do your own research as they're are a range of studies ongoing that are not included in standard breast regimes that will be in the future.

    https://breast.predict.nhs.uk/ is a great resource.
    Thanks for that and understood. I hope Mrs W is on the up. These figures are for my wife, with the relevant factors thrown in. The consultant had a handy little app where it's spat the figures out. The lymph nodes were the deciding factor. I'm just trying to make a bit of sense of the figures.
    MrsW very much on the up thanks. The app is probably the predict.nhs.uk tool. It is very good. We have some of the best longitudinal cancer data in the world, and many of the models are based upon UK data. There is a second useful predictor site, http://www.lifemath.net/cancer/breastcancer/therapy/ which we also found useful.

    MrsW (who is a GP so well understands the clinical context) found chemo grim - but it is much more bearable after the first cycle when you know what to expect, duration of symptoms, etc. It is a personal decision - but our/her experience is that the side-effects are marginal compared to the benefit of additional survivability.

    Best wishes to you and your wife.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894
    HYUFD said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    On those figures the risk of death within 10 years is almost halved by chemotherapy, though I don't know the "risks and side effects of chemotherapy" (Except chemo morbidity risk looks baked in here though ?) hence with no further info I'd advise a loved one to go for it.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,546

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    I wonder how those scores would have looked 10 years ago.

    The promising thing for the future is in some stuff on it I've seen the biggest supporter of socialism In the US are the youngest and the reverse for capitalism. Given a generation or so and these people will be deciding the countries direction.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,938

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months.
    Correlation is not causation.
    Leaders should take at least some responsibility for the fortunes of their parties. The question I would ask her is why the Libs were not good enough for her back in February.
    Because she’s more interested in holding on to a Parliamentary seat, than defending her political principles?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    Maybe but if Warren or Sanders were nominee on a socialist platform 42% would take the Democrats nearly down to McGovern or Mondale levels in the popular vote
    Warren is not a socialist.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    When did Nothern Ireland get annexed in to their country? I thought it was a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    "The Irish" includes people in Northern Ireland.
    If you thought that it meant only people living in the south, you have failed to understand the very basics of Northern Irish politics.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,702
    edited October 8
    Roger said:



    Sit calmly back in your seats and let our experienced pilot handle things from here...

    Very good. I've no doubt that the strongest card the opposition parties have is Boris Johnson. The voters-supporters and opponents alike-think he's an incorrigable liar. This might be being overshadowed in the polls at the moment by more pressing issues but I am 100% convinced that it will weigh very heavily during an election campaign.
    Roger, he is a politician.

    The reputation of all of them is in the sewer. We know they all lie and many fail to contain the impulse to physically express their pent up randiness with multiple partners of most available sexes.

    In a crowded field who will play the liar card?

    Jeremy Corbyn, he who was present but not involved has a colourful history of miss speaking and matrimonial partners. At least (as far as we know) Johnson didn't invite his mates home to show them his latest conquest as some allege Mr Corbyn did.

    Not fertile ground for our Jeremy

    How about Tom Watson, the relentless scourge of Westminster paedophiles campaigner who bullied police into a botched investigation? I can see an issue there.

    John MacDonald? He would do it very well, but there are far too many options in the John is a radical wild card pack.

    Phil Hammond? Not an issue that transfers easily to a spreadsheet, so we may have a wooden plank of an attack.

    Amber Rudd? We know she won't share a taxi, so that is a bit dull.

    Jo or Rachel Johnson? They may be better than average

    Unknown ex conquests? They will reduce credibility by timing revelations in a election campaign.

    The media? It is less effective than it was, and it is very much priced in.

    Social Media will indeed go crazy. I'm not sure what happens with Social Media advertising in an election campaign, but it is probably the most useful outlet. However much of Twitter / Facebook will be outrage in an echo chamber.

    In the same way many of the Corbyn personal attacks were useless last time, the Johnson ones are likely to be equally ineffective.

    I think if you rely on personal attacks you loose the election.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 20,384
    HYUFD said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    My father just finished chemo on that basis, it is a 'belt and braces' approach but up to the patient as it is not easy
    I'm glad he is ok and I wish him many more years.

    PB can be quite good in those circumstances as a place to take out frustration over events that are out of your control.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,090

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months.
    Correlation is not causation.
    Leaders should take at least some responsibility for the fortunes of their parties. The question I would ask her is why the Libs were not good enough for her back in February.
    I allow myself a self-indulgent chuckle now and then when commenters on this site say "if you don't like the thread headers, you should submit one", because I did submit one back in February saying (more or less) "TIG is going to be a dumpster fire unless they get some actual policies that are relevant in 2019".

    OGH wasn't interested, which is entirely his prerogative - he who runs the site makes the rules. But rereading it now it's actually quite prescient. TIG never did articulate what they were for, other than remain with a side order of reheated Blairism. You could argue that by the time Allen was appointed leader, one month in, it was already too late.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 252
    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months.
    Correlation is not causation.
    Leaders should take at least some responsibility for the fortunes of their parties. The question I would ask her is why the Libs were not good enough for her back in February.
    Because she’s more interested in holding on to a Parliamentary seat, than defending her political principles?
    Vince Cable was leader in February. And Boris Johnson wasn't yet leader of the Conservative Party. And 21 Tories hadn't been expelled by Boris's new regime.

    I'm not saying she isn't interested in holding on to a Parliamentary seat, but it is unfair to suggest that the landscape hasn't shifted considerably since then.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    When did Nothern Ireland get annexed in to their country? I thought it was a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    I think you have just illustrated the point that the article makes. If you can't see that there are millions of Irish people (living on both sides of the border) for whom a united Ireland, achieved peacefully and with consent, is a completely legitimate aspiration, then you can't expect anyone to respect and privilege your English nationalist aspirations either.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 20,384
    edited October 8

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    I wonder how those scores would have looked 10 years ago.

    The promising thing for the future is in some stuff on it I've seen the biggest supporter of socialism In the US are the youngest and the reverse for capitalism. Given a generation or so and these people will be deciding the countries direction.
    If you're not a socialist when you're young, etc...

    Good to see the youth still have a heart.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894
    No - they are additive percentage points. 82% plus 5% becomes 87%.

    Additive % points in an analysis like this are very strong. 5% to 82% could be spun out as a 28% increased survival rate,

    2% to 87% as 15%

    & the final 5% as 45%.


  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,534

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    When did Nothern Ireland get annexed in to their country? I thought it was a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    I think you have just illustrated the point that the article makes. If you can't see that there are millions of Irish people (living on both sides of the border) for whom a united Ireland, achieved peacefully and with consent, is a completely legitimate aspiration, then you can't expect anyone to respect and privilege your English nationalist aspirations either.
    Its an aspiration not a fact.

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    So the latter is subservient to the former. Brexit is more important than aspirations for a united Ireland.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    As this is a betting site surely we should all want a November election ?

    Since we aren’t leaving on 31st Oct - will Labour now support a GE ?
  • isamisam Posts: 28,277

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Agreed and you can get evens at Ladbrokes on her holding her seat.
    Do you think she will campaign on the same values she did in 2017?

    No second referendum, grasp the opportunity of Brexit, we must respect the ‘will of the people’ or else live in a banana republic etc etc

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    On those figures going the full monty reduces the risk of recurrence from 18% to 6%. I would go for it, but of course I am not Mrs TFS.

    Best wishes.

  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,090

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,702
    HYUFD said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    My father just finished chemo on that basis, it is a 'belt and braces' approach but up to the patient as it is not easy
    It is often a good question to ask the doctor if he would advise his/her wife to undergo the treatment (making an assumption of the sex or orientation of the doctor)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,938

    Sandpit said:

    This a a betting site where percentages and probability are understood and dissected to come up with realistic outcomes, so I'm hoping some clever souls with maybe a medical background can help me make sense of some figures.....
    After breast cancer surgery, where there is no more evidence of cancer in the body, a woman has an 82% chance of surviving 10 years or more without any further treatment.
    Radiotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    Hormone treatment adds another 2% to that.
    Chemotherapy adds another 5% to that.
    What do these figures really show?
    The question is, knowing the risks and side effects of chemotherapy, would you decline or accept it in this instance?

    To speak purely about statistics, and ignoring the specific subject matter.

    You are looking for good outcome X, and not bad outcome Y.

    Without mitigation Z, X is an 82% probability and Y is 18%.

    With mitigation Z, X becomes an 87% probability, and Y 13%.

    If you look at the numbers of Y only, the change from 18% to 13% is roughly 30%.

    So mitigation Z makes your undesired outcome Y 30% less likely to happen, and it’s on this basis that you need to evaluate the costs (financial and intangible) of the mitigation.
    Well said. The 82% is your baseline good scenario and the 5% is really close to 30% of what would otherwise be tragedy.

    Imagine if instead of talking about cancer we spoke about driving. If we say there is an 82% chance you wouldn't be involved in a fatal car crash in the next decade if you don't wear a seat belt, but that increases by 5% if seat belts are warn then that would mean seat belts are preventing 5/18 of what would otherwise be fatal accidents.

    Chemotherapy is more complicated than wearing a seat belt of course and you and your wife have my best wishes.
    Yes. Now clearly doctors prefer to talk about survival rates than morbidity rates, but it’s the reduction in the latter by the treatment that’s the important statistic.

    The ‘known unknown’ from the above scenario is the change in technology over the time period studied - there’s no reason to suggest that the incredible rate of change in medical technology of the last century won’t continue into the future - look at AIDS medication for a good example of this.

    (And obviously the best of luck to anyone affected by, or with their family affected by disease).
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,546
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    I wonder how those scores would have looked 10 years ago.

    The promising thing for the future is in some stuff on it I've seen the biggest supporter of socialism In the US are the youngest and the reverse for capitalism. Given a generation or so and these people will be deciding the countries direction.
    If you're not a socialist when you're young, etc...

    Good to see the youth still have a heart.
    If you can produce figures showing similar in the US 10 years ago I will happily retract my statement...

    Even without those figures it seems obvious that the future looks brighter for the left in the USA than it has for a very long time.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,534

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    If the voters of Northern Ireland elect an assembly executive on a manifesto of holding a border poll then yes absolutely I would. Same as the Scottish and UK governments won elections then held a vote.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,757

    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.

    I am flabbergasted it is that high. Frontier self reliance, rags to riches, god and guns, rifle on the porch, rugged individualism, Fonzie and the Cunninghams, Silicon Valley, Texas Oil, Wall St - and yet close to half are attracted to socialism.

    Whither the American Dream?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months.
    Correlation is not causation.
    Leaders should take at least some responsibility for the fortunes of their parties. The question I would ask her is why the Libs were not good enough for her back in February.
    I allow myself a self-indulgent chuckle now and then when commenters on this site say "if you don't like the thread headers, you should submit one", because I did submit one back in February saying (more or less) "TIG is going to be a dumpster fire unless they get some actual policies that are relevant in 2019".

    OGH wasn't interested, which is entirely his prerogative - he who runs the site makes the rules. But rereading it now it's actually quite prescient. TIG never did articulate what they were for, other than remain with a side order of reheated Blairism. You could argue that by the time Allen was appointed leader, one month in, it was already too late.
    Very true. They didn't give the impression of really wanting to become an actual party after the Paedo smeller pursuivant created the Scooby gang to stop defections, delayed far too long in branding themselves and made the crucial error of not standing in the locals or at least licensing indies to stand on their banner which allowed the LDs to recover by default by being the protest vote. The weight of votes that 'independents' received shows the impact Change could have had. They missed the boat.
  • isamisam Posts: 28,277
    isam said:

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Agreed and you can get evens at Ladbrokes on her holding her seat.
    Do you think she will campaign on the same values she did in 2017?

    No second referendum, grasp the opportunity of Brexit, we must respect the ‘will of the people’ or else live in a banana republic etc etc

    I’m assuming she voted for the PMs agreement with the EU after making those statements to get elected?
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    If the voters of Northern Ireland elect an assembly executive on a manifesto of holding a border poll then yes absolutely I would. Same as the Scottish and UK governments won elections then held a vote.
    All three have different systems for electing an executive/government. Seems to me you're surprisingly permissive with your mandates.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    I’d imagine if there was a decent level of support they would have some MPs at parliament calling for a referendum- just like the SNP.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,481
    kinabalu said:

    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.

    I am flabbergasted it is that high. Frontier self reliance, rags to riches, god and guns, rifle on the porch, rugged individualism, Fonzie and the Cunninghams, Silicon Valley, Texas Oil, Wall St - and yet close to half are attracted to socialism.

    Whither the American Dream?
    I think in America - and looking at the answers given in that poll - socialism really means social democracy, rather than full-blooded Foot/Corbyn socialism as we’d take it to mean here.

    People will support whatever “system” they think will deliver the goods for them. If capitalism ceases to do so consistently, or at least shows up some doing much better than them, then they will start to look at alternatives even if they make the situation worse.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,481
    The organised opposition in this Parliament wants to neuter or cancel Brexit.

    A GE is high risk and could return a Boris majority, and lose them their seats. By contrast, they might be able to engineer a second referendum without a GE if it continues.

    Therefore, I expect the actions of the opposition to be focussed on the latter.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    kinabalu said:

    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.

    I am flabbergasted it is that high. Frontier self reliance, rags to riches, god and guns, rifle on the porch, rugged individualism, Fonzie and the Cunninghams, Silicon Valley, Texas Oil, Wall St - and yet close to half are attracted to socialism.

    Whither the American Dream?
    I was initially surprised, but the grinding inequality of the USA is bound to drive people into the arms of socialists. This is a wake-up call for those on the neoliberal wing of capitalism. Time to rein it in and go in for a more solid and sustainable form of capitalism before the voters tip the whole table over.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081
    @Cyclefree FPT

    The untenability I referred to was the U.K. trying to maintain the whole of Ireland in the Union against the will of the people. Many years ago I wrote a header on here about that and the parallels with Scottish independence.

    The issue is one of competing rights: do you define the demos in Ireland as the whole of the island or do you say that the majority in the six counties has the right to pursue an independent future? It’s the same argument as to whether Scotland should vote alone on independence or independence can only be granted as a result of a majority vote in the UK as a whole.

    There are strong arguments that for historical reasons - right or wrong - dating back hundreds of years the Protestant community in North Ireland is a different demos to Southern Ireland and hence partition was the equitable solution. (Even if Craig et al salted the ground thereafter)

    If this is the case I don’t see how you can justify (a) independence against their will and (b) a forced merger with a neighbouring state with a different religion. It would be as successful as the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    TGOHF2 said:

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    I’d imagine if there was a decent level of support they would have some MPs at parliament calling for a referendum- just like the SNP.
    But as someone said yesterday, they can never head a government in Westminster, so it "has to" be done through the devolved parliament.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Noo said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    I’d imagine if there was a decent level of support they would have some MPs at parliament calling for a referendum- just like the SNP.
    But as someone said yesterday, they can never head a government in Westminster, so it "has to" be done through the devolved parliament.
    Which they won’t support due to road signs.

    Suggests they don’t care for a referendum that much.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 20,384

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    I wonder how those scores would have looked 10 years ago.

    The promising thing for the future is in some stuff on it I've seen the biggest supporter of socialism In the US are the youngest and the reverse for capitalism. Given a generation or so and these people will be deciding the countries direction.
    If you're not a socialist when you're young, etc...

    Good to see the youth still have a heart.
    If you can produce figures showing similar in the US 10 years ago I will happily retract my statement...

    Even without those figures it seems obvious that the future looks brighter for the left in the USA than it has for a very long time.
    I'm not going to produce any figures but every year the world gets more connected and, now, more Greta-fied. I'd be amazed if American youth didn't increasingly reflect the views of youth abroad.

    It's when they're older, working tax payers, with a mortgage, that they need to keep the faith and many don't. Hence that quote.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    TGOHF2 said:

    Noo said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    I’d imagine if there was a decent level of support they would have some MPs at parliament calling for a referendum- just like the SNP.
    But as someone said yesterday, they can never head a government in Westminster, so it "has to" be done through the devolved parliament.
    Which they won’t support due to road signs.

    Suggests they don’t care for a referendum that much.
    Road signs?
    Actually no, don't bother. I don't even care.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,090

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    If the voters of Northern Ireland elect an assembly executive on a manifesto of holding a border poll then yes absolutely I would. Same as the Scottish and UK governments won elections then held a vote.
    The slight problem with that right now is, of course, the whole Stormont thing.
    TGOHF2 said:

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    I’d imagine if there was a decent level of support they would have some MPs at parliament calling for a referendum- just like the SNP.
    And the slight problem with that is, of course, the whole Sinn Fein thing.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476
    Noo said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    Yes, that contradiction had passed me by. Fintan O'Toole really is one of the better writers around.
    The contempt for Ireland and Irish concerns is one of the most striking and depressing characteristics of many Brexiteers.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137
    kinabalu said:

    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.

    I am flabbergasted it is that high. Frontier self reliance, rags to riches, god and guns, rifle on the porch, rugged individualism, Fonzie and the Cunninghams, Silicon Valley, Texas Oil, Wall St - and yet close to half are attracted to socialism.

    Whither the American Dream?
    Milwaukee (home of Fonzie and the Cunninghams) elected three socialist mayors, at least according to Alice Cooper in Wayne's World.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Noo said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Noo said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    I’d imagine if there was a decent level of support they would have some MPs at parliament calling for a referendum- just like the SNP.
    But as someone said yesterday, they can never head a government in Westminster, so it "has to" be done through the devolved parliament.
    Which they won’t support due to road signs.

    Suggests they don’t care for a referendum that much.
    Road signs?
    Actually no, don't bother. I don't even care.
    SF want dual language road signs as the price of the executive sitting again.
  • NooNoo Posts: 1,661
    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    Yes, that contradiction had passed me by. Fintan O'Toole really is one of the better writers around.
    The contempt for Ireland and Irish concerns is one of the most striking and depressing characteristics of many Brexiteers.
    That hadn't passed me by. Regrettably it's all but unmissable.
    I see Varadkar is being set up as a scapegoat but Cummings et al.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,481

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    I wonder how those scores would have looked 10 years ago.

    The promising thing for the future is in some stuff on it I've seen the biggest supporter of socialism In the US are the youngest and the reverse for capitalism. Given a generation or so and these people will be deciding the countries direction.
    If you're not a socialist when you're young, etc...

    Good to see the youth still have a heart.
    If you can produce figures showing similar in the US 10 years ago I will happily retract my statement...

    Even without those figures it seems obvious that the future looks brighter for the left in the USA than it has for a very long time.
    It misses the point. The rise of western democracy has taken place in a climate of ever increasing wealth and prosperity over the last 250 years. The debate has been about how to carve up the spoils of growth.

    The far scarier question is whether western democracy can survive the opposite: an environment where people start to become relatively poorer and less influential, as they start to reach out to anything or anyone who promises (incorrectly) they can stop or reverse it, rather than mitigate it.
  • isamisam Posts: 28,277
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Agreed and you can get evens at Ladbrokes on her holding her seat.
    Do you think she will campaign on the same values she did in 2017?

    No second referendum, grasp the opportunity of Brexit, we must respect the ‘will of the people’ or else live in a banana republic etc etc

    I’m assuming she voted for the PMs agreement with the EU after making those statements to get elected?
    Heidi Allen in 2017:

    “I was a Remainer, but, the minute we start ignoring the democratic will of the people in this country, we are slipping, very quickly, towards the kind of banana republic I don’t want to live in.

    So we have to accept the result.”
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    Yes, that contradiction had passed me by. Fintan O'Toole really is one of the better writers around.
    The contempt for Ireland and Irish concerns is one of the most striking and depressing characteristics of many Brexiteers.
    Irish concerns are not equal to Uk concerns - if you are the Uk government - quite rightly.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,534
    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    Yes, that contradiction had passed me by. Fintan O'Toole really is one of the better writers around.
    The contempt for Ireland and Irish concerns is one of the most striking and depressing characteristics of many Brexiteers.
    The contempt for democracy, Brexiteers and what we voted for by the Irish and others is just as striking and just as depressing.

    I have no qualms with a border poll in Ireland if that's what the voters want. But failing that we should respect democracy and the whole United Kingdom should leave. That's not unreasonable its democracy.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,546
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    I wonder how those scores would have looked 10 years ago.

    The promising thing for the future is in some stuff on it I've seen the biggest supporter of socialism In the US are the youngest and the reverse for capitalism. Given a generation or so and these people will be deciding the countries direction.
    If you're not a socialist when you're young, etc...

    Good to see the youth still have a heart.
    If you can produce figures showing similar in the US 10 years ago I will happily retract my statement...

    Even without those figures it seems obvious that the future looks brighter for the left in the USA than it has for a very long time.
    I'm not going to produce any figures but every year the world gets more connected and, now, more Greta-fied. I'd be amazed if American youth didn't increasingly reflect the views of youth abroad.

    It's when they're older, working tax payers, with a mortgage, that they need to keep the faith and many don't. Hence that quote.
    That makes sense, I suppose it is why homosexuality is still illegal and we don't have gay marriage in this country, people will always believe what their parents believed...

    As the generations move on what is acceptable or what people believe shifts based on the people that are still there, you can kid yourself that inside every young Labour and Democrat voter there is a Johnson or Trump waiting to pop out but you are likely to be very disappointed.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,456
    TGOHF2 said:

    As this is a betting site surely we should all want a November election ?

    Since we aren’t leaving on 31st Oct - will Labour now support a GE ?

    I suspect Labour will. But Mr Meeks and others seem quite confident there won't be an election in 2019...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,097
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Agreed and you can get evens at Ladbrokes on her holding her seat.
    Do you think she will campaign on the same values she did in 2017?

    No second referendum, grasp the opportunity of Brexit, we must respect the ‘will of the people’ or else live in a banana republic etc etc

    I’m assuming she voted for the PMs agreement with the EU after making those statements to get elected?
    Heidi Allen in 2017:

    “I was a Remainer, but, the minute we start ignoring the democratic will of the people in this country, we are slipping, very quickly, towards the kind of banana republic I don’t want to live in.

    So we have to accept the result.”
    In 2017 we apparently held all the cards and a deal would be the easiest thing on earth and the sunny uplands were waiting, no deal was project fear. It’s no wonder that some people are changing their minds.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,229

    Many, many thanks for the kind words and help on those cancer figures. It's given me a better understanding. When you're in the consultant's office, no matter how many notes or questions I prepared beforehand, it just goes out of the window and my brain turns to mush!

    All the best to the lady. Other factors to be considered are the patient's general health....... are there any other concurrent conditions, physical or mental, ....... and the age of the patient.
    All the bar charts etc depend on all other factors being equal, but of course do remember that they're all 'just' averages.

    As I say, all the best to both of you.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,253
    EU massively overplaying their hand. No deal now almost certain. Extension, election called, Tory majority, no deal
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200
    kinabalu said:

    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.

    I am flabbergasted it is that high. Frontier self reliance, rags to riches, god and guns, rifle on the porch, rugged individualism, Fonzie and the Cunninghams, Silicon Valley, Texas Oil, Wall St - and yet close to half are attracted to socialism.

    Whither the American Dream?
    Rather like 'liberal', 'socialist' has perhaps become to be defined in a novel and rather unclear US manner ?

    In terms of changes to income distribution, the US has experienced a period not entirely dissimilar to the Gilded Age, and that saw similar developments (the rise of trades unions, for example).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,534
    TGOHF2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    Yes, that contradiction had passed me by. Fintan O'Toole really is one of the better writers around.
    The contempt for Ireland and Irish concerns is one of the most striking and depressing characteristics of many Brexiteers.
    Irish concerns are not equal to Uk concerns - if you are the Uk government - quite rightly.
    Or a UK voter.

    I expect Irish voters will hold the Irish government to account. I expect UK voters will do the same. If there's a conflict between the two I want my government on my side.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    When did Nothern Ireland get annexed in to their country? I thought it was a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    The Act of Union of 1801 was between the whole of the island of Ireland and the rest of the UK.

    In the early 20th century despite a majority of the people of Ireland wishing to become independent the UK kept (annexed if you prefer) 6 counties of Ireland in order to create a Protestant statelet for a Protestant people. The interests and wishes of the very substantial Catholic nationalist minority were ignored. As was the will of the people of Ireland.

    Some Wills of the People are more important than others I guess.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,456
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    I wonder how those scores would have looked 10 years ago.

    The promising thing for the future is in some stuff on it I've seen the biggest supporter of socialism In the US are the youngest and the reverse for capitalism. Given a generation or so and these people will be deciding the countries direction.
    If you're not a socialist when you're young, etc...

    Good to see the youth still have a heart.
    If you can produce figures showing similar in the US 10 years ago I will happily retract my statement...

    Even without those figures it seems obvious that the future looks brighter for the left in the USA than it has for a very long time.
    I'm not going to produce any figures but every year the world gets more connected and, now, more Greta-fied. I'd be amazed if American youth didn't increasingly reflect the views of youth abroad.

    It's when they're older, working tax payers, with a mortgage, that they need to keep the faith and many don't. Hence that quote.
    Labour won among working voters in 2017. Both those working part time and full time. It was their commanding lead among the retired that gave the Tories victory.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,534

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:
    42% seems a pretty good score given how it's been reviled in the US for decades. Sanders openly endorsing it has probably helped.
    I wonder how those scores would have looked 10 years ago.

    The promising thing for the future is in some stuff on it I've seen the biggest supporter of socialism In the US are the youngest and the reverse for capitalism. Given a generation or so and these people will be deciding the countries direction.
    If you're not a socialist when you're young, etc...

    Good to see the youth still have a heart.
    If you can produce figures showing similar in the US 10 years ago I will happily retract my statement...

    Even without those figures it seems obvious that the future looks brighter for the left in the USA than it has for a very long time.
    I'm not going to produce any figures but every year the world gets more connected and, now, more Greta-fied. I'd be amazed if American youth didn't increasingly reflect the views of youth abroad.

    It's when they're older, working tax payers, with a mortgage, that they need to keep the faith and many don't. Hence that quote.
    That makes sense, I suppose it is why homosexuality is still illegal and we don't have gay marriage in this country, people will always believe what their parents believed...

    As the generations move on what is acceptable or what people believe shifts based on the people that are still there, you can kid yourself that inside every young Labour and Democrat voter there is a Johnson or Trump waiting to pop out but you are likely to be very disappointed.
    Don't confuse cultural and economic issues.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,561

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Her ill fated spell as its leader managed to reduce Change UK from its early double digit polling to flatlining in the space of three months.
    Correlation is not causation.
    Leaders should take at least some responsibility for the fortunes of their parties. The question I would ask her is why the Libs were not good enough for her back in February.
    Naive. Clearly she's got you rattled.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,104

    The organised opposition in this Parliament wants to neuter or cancel Brexit.

    A GE is high risk and could return a Boris majority, and lose them their seats. By contrast, they might be able to engineer a second referendum without a GE if it continues.

    Therefore, I expect the actions of the opposition to be focussed on the latter.

    I don't disagree most might want that, but it seems to me to require:
    (a) agreement between virtually all of Lab, LD, SNP and Con rebels on a leader.
    (b) agreement between virtually all of Lab, LD, SNP and Con rebels on a 6+ month programme for government.
    or (c) forcing Boris (at the point of a sharpened Supreme Court) to a second referendum through more Benn-style Acts.

    I just don't see that happening. (a) might possibly, but only if needed to thwart a last-minute BJ wheeze (and even for that, the SC seems the more likely tool now).

    I think the Rebel Alliance will have achieved (on extension day) the outer limit of what it can realistically do. And, risky or not, that surely means a GE is next? Their collective support can only dwindle if they extend for 3 or 6 months with no purpose except more pointless spaffing from Bozza and the EU looking on in bemusement.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 214

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/brexit-irish-border-technology

    This piece makes a number of good points. Most salient for me was pointing out the hypocrisy of Brexiteers prioritising questions of English identity and nationhood over economics or technocratic ease, but expecting the Irish to be amenable to a technocratic solution to the border question and simply accept the re-eraction of borders across their country.

    When did Nothern Ireland get annexed in to their country? I thought it was a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    I think you have just illustrated the point that the article makes. If you can't see that there are millions of Irish people (living on both sides of the border) for whom a united Ireland, achieved peacefully and with consent, is a completely legitimate aspiration, then you can't expect anyone to respect and privilege your English nationalist aspirations either.
    Its an aspiration not a fact.

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    So the latter is subservient to the former. Brexit is more important than aspirations for a united Ireland.
    But the Good Friday Agreement predates the Brexit referendum, so the UK should leave in a way that respects it. The simplest way to do this is for the UK to leave the EU while remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market. It's stupid to be considering any other way of leaving the EU.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,938
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Roger said:

    Of all the party cross dressing that's gone on lately Heidi Allen must be the pick of the bunch. A great new recruit for the Lib Dems

    Agreed and you can get evens at Ladbrokes on her holding her seat.
    Do you think she will campaign on the same values she did in 2017?

    No second referendum, grasp the opportunity of Brexit, we must respect the ‘will of the people’ or else live in a banana republic etc etc

    I’m assuming she voted for the PMs agreement with the EU after making those statements to get elected?
    Heidi Allen in 2017:

    “I was a Remainer, but, the minute we start ignoring the democratic will of the people in this country, we are slipping, very quickly, towards the kind of banana republic I don’t want to live in.

    So we have to accept the result.”
    Sometimes those election leaflets just write themselves. ;)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 24,534
    TGOHF2 said:

    Noo said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    Noo said:

    TGOHF2 said:

    The voters of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, that is a fact.
    The voters of Northern Ireland have not voted for a United Ireland.

    They haven't been asked. Would you support asking them?
    I’d imagine if there was a decent level of support they would have some MPs at parliament calling for a referendum- just like the SNP.
    But as someone said yesterday, they can never head a government in Westminster, so it "has to" be done through the devolved parliament.
    Which they won’t support due to road signs.

    Suggests they don’t care for a referendum that much.
    Road signs?
    Actually no, don't bother. I don't even care.
    SF want dual language road signs as the price of the executive sitting again.
    Like in Wales?

    Hopefully they'll put up signs with out of office autoreplies LOL!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,894
    Hmm I didn't think Johnson could politically survive penning the extension letter (Even under duress) but Jo Maugham with his attempt to turn us into a lawyerocracy (Challenging an article in the specie, really ?) is clearly trying his hardest to have Johnson's inevitable U-turn exonerated in the court of public opinion.
This discussion has been closed.