But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
Dubya's comment actually taken out of context?
Wasn't he speaking as Governor of Texas and talking about imports into Texas, versus from the rest of America and rest of the world?
I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. Texas of course as one of only two states to have had an independent existence (and the only one that lasted more than a week) has always seen itself a bit differently (hence 'Lone Star State') so it seems possible.
I've always thought that their slogan "Don't mess with Texas" isn't the best way to pull in tourists.
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
Dubya's comment actually taken out of context?
Wasn't he speaking as Governor of Texas and talking about imports into Texas, versus from the rest of America and rest of the world?
I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. Texas of course as one of only two states to have had an independent existence (and the only one that lasted more than a week) has always seen itself a bit differently (hence 'Lone Star State') so it seems possible.
Edit - that would then leave 'when you say you're going to do something and then don't do it, that's trustworthiness,' as his finest gaffe.
I always liked his comment on Al Gore's tax plans “It’s going to require numerous IRA agents.”
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
So UKIP still stood in more than half the 650 seats at the 2017 general election and an even higher percentage once you exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland where they stood the fewest candidates.
In the seats they stood, they averaged 4.4%. Assume they wouldn't stand in Northern Ireland under any circumstances, but that in the rest of the country they'd average 2% (which is probably an understatement).
This means the true level of support for UKIP in 2017 was 3.1%.
The pollsters now have the 2017 general election results so weight the UKIP voters from 2017 voters to the 1.8% they got nationwide in June. So if UKIP are now on 4% nationwide that means they are likely doing even better in the more than 50% of seats they stood candidates in in June.
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
Dubya's comment actually taken out of context?
Wasn't he speaking as Governor of Texas and talking about imports into Texas, versus from the rest of America and rest of the world?
I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. Texas of course as one of only two states to have had an independent existence (and the only one that lasted more than a week) has always seen itself a bit differently (hence 'Lone Star State') so it seems possible.
I've always thought that their slogan "Don't mess with Texas" isn't the best way to pull in tourists.
Calling them Texicans always winds them up.
Oh and calling him Jim Bow wee and not Jim Boo hee is a serious infractions.
And saying 'Celebrating the Alamo? What are you French'
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
The trouble with Brexit meaning different things to different groups is that the Tories may well find that their version of Brexit agrees with nobody.
GE2022 doesn't look good. The remainers will, of course, vote against the Tories. The ultra hard line Brexiteers may vote UKIP if any kind of concession is made to the EU. 'Soft' leavers may change their mind once hard Brexit becomes a reality. And the version of Brexit the Tories are pursuing (with a heavy focus on ending immigration above all else) may appeal largely to a working class who would consider it an act of class betrayal to vote Conservative anyway.
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
The trouble with Brexit meaning different things to different groups is that the Tories may well find that their version of Brexit agrees with nobody.
GE2022 doesn't look good. The remainers will, of course, vote against the Tories. The ultra hard line Brexiteers may vote UKIP if any kind of concession is made to the EU. 'Soft' leavers may change their mind once hard Brexit becomes a reality. And the version of Brexit the Tories are pursuing (with a heavy focus on ending immigration above all else) may appeal largely to a working class who would consider it an act of class betrayal to vote Conservative anyway.
A FTA is not hard Brexit but the rising UKIP vote does make it more likely a committed Leaver replaces May as Tory leader once she has done her job of making enough concessions to the EU for a FTA (excluding keeping freedom of movement)
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
The trouble with Brexit meaning different things to different groups is that the Tories may well find that their version of Brexit agrees with nobody.
GE2022 doesn't look good. The remainers will, of course, vote against the Tories. The ultra hard line Brexiteers may vote UKIP if any kind of concession is made to the EU. 'Soft' leavers may change their mind once hard Brexit becomes a reality. And the version of Brexit the Tories are pursuing (with a heavy focus on ending immigration above all else) may appeal largely to a working class who would consider it an act of class betrayal to vote Conservative anyway.
Yep. As I said earlier, the Tories' problem is that there aren't enough people who want Brexit but don't want socialism. And that the former are decreasing as the reality of Brexit starts to dawn on people, whereas the latter is increasing as each age cohort of 18-year olds joins the register and the middle aged cohort that used to abandon Labour when they bought their house aren't, because they can't.
IMO, there are a lot of people who want Brexit, but don't want socialism.
but not enough to give the Tories a majority.
Corbyn actually has a similar problem, in that most of his core base of activists are young and fanatically pro Europe, while he, and a substantial portion of the working class traditional Labour vote, are pro Brexit.
The difference is, of course, Corbyn is not in government and therefore has the option of masterfully sitting on the fence until the deal is done.
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
The trouble with Brexit meaning different things to different groups is that the Tories may well find that their version of Brexit agrees with nobody.
GE2022 doesn't look good. The remainers will, of course, vote against the Tories. The ultra hard line Brexiteers may vote UKIP if any kind of concession is made to the EU. 'Soft' leavers may change their mind once hard Brexit becomes a reality. And the version of Brexit the Tories are pursuing (with a heavy focus on ending immigration above all else) may appeal largely to a working class who would consider it an act of class betrayal to vote Conservative anyway.
Yep. As I said earlier, the Tories' problem is that there aren't enough people who want Brexit but don't want socialism. And that the former are decreasing as the reality of Brexit starts to dawn on people, whereas the latter is increasing as each age cohort of 18-year olds joins the register and the middle aged cohort that used to abandon Labour when they bought their house aren't, because they can't.
IMO, there are a lot of people who want Brexit, but don't want socialism.
There are also people who want Brexit and socialism, including a third of Labour voters
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
Surely they should be compared to the average of ten polls previous to the general election, and not to the GE itself? Not like for like.
Do you mean compared to the polls at the same point in the previous parliament, ie. 6 months after the 2015 election?
I mean it makes zero sense to compare the average of the last ten polls to the actual result of the GE. You would need to compare them to what they predicted for the GE with the same methodology to be a meaningful comparison, and even that would have problems if they've got the weightings wrong.
Even that is wrong, because people respond differently to pollsters when the "if there is an election.." question is hypothetical and distant, than they do when there is an impending real decision to make. This of course explains why oppositions poll higher in mid-term and drop back as the election approaches - a "rule" that was broken this year.
It would be for political paychologists to interpret in that way. As it is, comparing the polls to the GE result isn't even usable to judge responses, nevermind intentions.
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
I may be dim, but surely there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Pryce said? Borrowing money repayable in say a year's time to repay a loan you took out last year which is repayable today is a rational act, and a thing which actually happens all the time, and is the reason why credit crunches are so damaging.
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
So UKIP still stood in more than half the 650 seats at the 2017 general election and an even higher percentage once you exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland where they stood the fewest candidates.
In the seats they stood, they averaged 4.4%. Assume they wouldn't stand in Northern Ireland under any circumstances, but that in the rest of the country they'd average 2% (which is probably an understatement).
This means the true level of support for UKIP in 2017 was 3.1%.
The pollsters now have the 2017 general election results so weight the UKIP voters from 2017 voters to the 1.8% they got nationwide in June. So if UKIP are now on 4% nationwide that means they are likely doing even better in the more than 50% of seats they stood candidates in in June.
That's irrelevant to the argument*.
The UKIP poll share today is what they'd get in 625 odd constituencies. The UKIP general election share was based on their votes in 378 seats.
You would be better off comparing today's opinion polls with pre-2017 General Election UKIP opinion polls, as many UKIP voters will have arrived at their polling booths to find themselves unable to vote UKIP.
* Indeed, it may mean that many true UKIP supporters voted for other parties in 2017 and therefore show as "switchers" now, even though UKIP was always their preferred option.
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
Dubya's comment actually taken out of context?
Wasn't he speaking as Governor of Texas and talking about imports into Texas, versus from the rest of America and rest of the world?
I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. Texas of course as one of only two states to have had an independent existence (and the only one that lasted more than a week) has always seen itself a bit differently (hence 'Lone Star State') so it seems possible.
Edit - that would then leave 'when you say you're going to do something and then don't do it, that's trustworthiness,' as his finest gaffe.
I always liked his comment on Al Gore's tax plans “It’s going to require numerous IRA agents.”
To go back to something to talk about earlier, I’m quite impressed to hear that John McDonnell is wargaming the scenarios in the event of the Labour Party winning the next election. The best way to overcome the party’s poor image on economic competence is to develop some.
Sadly, they only seem to be modelling disaster situations. Runs on the pound. Market meltdowns. Cannot imagine why.
You may wish to keep the clever-cleverness quiet for a bit.
Maybe.
snipped
Perhaps they are all buying bitcoin...
snipped The fact that McDonnell is wargaming precisely these scenarios is, as BannedInParis points out, a bad sign, not a good one, of what's to come.
My own view is that a Corbyn majority government (ie a situation where he has both an absolute majority in the house of commons and the loyalty of all his MP's) would fail almost immediately. Unless they were able to establish credibility with the markets (and the signs on this front are not promising at all for Labour) it would surely lead to capital flight straight away and multiple unfolding crises which they find themselves completely incapable of managing.
What is more likely to happen instead is that - if he gets elected at all - it would be either as a minority government and forced in to the position of compromising with other parties, or where he doesn't command the loyalty of his MP's, who undermine his attempts at setting a budget. In that scenario, things would not be so bad, and Corbyn would simply blame whoever or whatever is getting in their way for their failure to deliver everything they promised.
Either way, what eventually happens is that we then get a nasty, authoritarian right wing government to sort out the mess.
I don't see Corbynism as a credible project at all. It has no underlying credible economic strategy. They talk about investing in infrastructure, but when you get in to the detail what they actually want to do is borrowing money to subsidise public services, and essentially plundering the resources of the state to promote their own favoured causes and interest groups in the name of 'equality' . But actually, as Owen Jones often points out and John McDonnell has admitted, it isn't about actually delivering the things they are promising. It is using Parliamentary democracy to turn people against the capitalist system.
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
Dubya's comment actually taken out of context?
Wasn't he speaking as Governor of Texas and talking about imports into Texas, versus from the rest of America and rest of the world?
I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. Texas of course as one of only two states to have had an independent existence (and the only one that lasted more than a week) has always seen itself a bit differently (hence 'Lone Star State') so it seems possible.
Edit - that would then leave 'when you say you're going to do something and then don't do it, that's trustworthiness,' as his finest gaffe.
I always liked his comment on Al Gore's tax plans “It’s going to require numerous IRA agents.”
What, as a mistake for IRS? Given that IRA is not an acronym which resonates with the Yanks as it does with us, that's really not a show-stopper, surely?
And while I am at it, the French do *not* have a word for entrepreneur. entrepreneur does not mean entrepreneur, it means contractor - as in someone who does a subsidiary part of a job for a fixed fee rather than for a share of the profits. The French for undertaker, for example, is entrepreneur de pompes funèbres, with no connotation of someone who started out burying one person at a time from his parents' basement and has just floated the funeral equivalent of Uber for a billion dollars.
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
I may be dim, but surely there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Pryce said? Borrowing money repayable in say a year's time to repay a loan you took out last year which is repayable today is a rational act, and a thing which actually happens all the time, and is the reason why credit crunches are so damaging.
To go back to something to talk about earlier, I’m quite impressed to hear that John McDonnell is wargaming the scenarios in the event of the Labour Party winning the next election. The best way to overcome the party’s poor image on economic competence is to develop some.
Sadly, they only seem to be modelling disaster situations. Runs on the pound. Market meltdowns. Cannot imagine why.
You may wish to keep the clever-cleverness quiet for a bit.
Maybe.
snipped
Perhaps they are all buying bitcoin...
snipped The fact that McDonnell is wargaming precisely these scenarios is, as BannedInParis points out, a bad sign, not a good one, of what's to come.
My own view is that a Corbyn majority government (ie a situation where he has both an absolute majority in the house of commons and the loyalty of all his MP's) would fail almost immediately. Unless they were able to establish credibility with the markets (and the signs on this front are not promising at all for Labour) it would surely lead to capital flight straight away and multiple unfolding crises which they find themselves completely incapable of managing.
What is more likely to happen instead is that - if he gets elected at all - it would be either as a minority government and forced in to the position of compromising with other parties, or where he doesn't command the loyalty of his MP's, who undermine his attempts at setting a budget. In that scenario, things would not be so bad, and Corbyn would simply blame whoever or whatever is getting in their way for their failure to deliver everything they promised.
Either way, what eventually happens is that we then get a nasty, authoritarian right wing government to sort out the mess.
I don't see Corbynism as a credible project at all. It has no underlying credible economic strategy. They talk about investing in infrastructure, but when you get in to the detail what they actually want to do is borrowing money to subsidise public services, and essentially plundering the resources of the state to promote their own favoured causes and interest groups in the name of 'equality' . But actually, as Owen Jones often points out and John McDonnell has admitted, it isn't about actually delivering the things they are promising. It is using Parliamentary democracy to turn people against the capitalist system.
Well I don't think you are right in your fears. But it is at least optimistic in that you are assuming that after Brexit there will still be assume capital left to fly.
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
So UKIP still stood in more than half the 650 seats at the 2017 general election and an even higher percentage once you exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland where they stood the fewest candidates.
In the seats they stood, they averaged 4.4%. Assume they wouldn't stand in Northern Ireland under any circumstances, but that in the rest of the country they'd average 2% (which is probably an understatement).
This means the true level of support for UKIP in 2017 was 3.1%.
The pollsters now have the 2017 general election results so weight the UKIP voters from 2017 voters to the 1.8% they got nationwide in June. So if UKIP are now on 4% nationwide that means they are likely doing even better in the more than 50% of seats they stood candidates in in June.
That's irrelevant to the argument*.
The UKIP poll share today is what they'd get in 625 odd constituencies. The UKIP general election share was based on their votes in 378 seats.
You would be better off comparing today's opinion polls with pre-2017 General Election UKIP opinion polls, as many UKIP voters will have arrived at their polling booths to find themselves unable to vote UKIP.
* Indeed, it may mean that many true UKIP supporters voted for other parties in 2017 and therefore show as "switchers" now, even though UKIP was always their preferred option.
The UKIP voteshare is what they got across all 650 seats of the UK, irrespective of whether they stood a candidate or not. The higher the UKIP poll score the more candidates they will field next time, though of course if UKIP are up but do not stand a candidate in a seat that benefits the Tory candidate in that seat.
Look at the polling subsamples, in many if not most polls the main move of June 2017 Tory voters has not been to Labour but to UKIP and that is confirmed by the polling average shift posted earlier.
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
I may be dim, but surely there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Pryce said? Borrowing money repayable in say a year's time to repay a loan you took out last year which is repayable today is a rational act, and a thing which actually happens all the time, and is the reason why credit crunches are so damaging.
That's rolling over debt, not repaying it.
It's repaying debt to A if the second loan is from B.
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
Dubya's comment actually taken out of context?
Wasn't he speaking as Governor of Texas and talking about imports into Texas, versus from the rest of America and rest of the world?
I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. Texas of course as one of only two states to have had an independent existence (and the only one that lasted more than a week) has always seen itself a bit differently (hence 'Lone Star State') so it seems possible.
Edit - that would then leave 'when you say you're going to do something and then don't do it, that's trustworthiness,' as his finest gaffe.
I always liked his comment on Al Gore's tax plans “It’s going to require numerous IRA agents.”
What, as a mistake for IRS? Given that IRA is not an acronym which resonates with the Yanks as it does with us, that's really not a show-stopper, surely?
And while I am at it, the French do *not* have a word for entrepreneur. entrepreneur does not mean entrepreneur, it means contractor - as in someone who does a subsidiary part of a job for a fixed fee rather than for a share of the profits. The French for undertaker, for example, is entrepreneur de pompes funèbres, with no connotation of someone who started out burying one person at a time from his parents' basement and has just floated the funeral equivalent of Uber for a billion dollars.
Isn't IRA in America something to do with pension plans?
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
I may be dim, but surely there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Pryce said? Borrowing money repayable in say a year's time to repay a loan you took out last year which is repayable today is a rational act, and a thing which actually happens all the time, and is the reason why credit crunches are so damaging.
That's rolling over debt, not repaying it.
It's repaying debt to A if the second loan is from B.
But it is not 'repaying debt.' There is a very important difference.
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
So UKIP still stood in more than half the 650 seats at the 2017 general election and an even higher percentage once you exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland where they stood the fewest candidates.
In the seats they stood, they averaged 4.4%. Assume they wouldn't stand in Northern Ireland under any circumstances, but that in the rest of the country they'd average 2% (which is probably an understatement).
This means the true level of support for UKIP in 2017 was 3.1%.
The pollsters now have the 2017 general election results so weight the UKIP voters from 2017 voters to the 1.8% they got nationwide in June. So if UKIP are now on 4% nationwide that means they are likely doing even better in the more than 50% of seats they stood candidates in in June.
That's irrelevant to the argument*.
The UKIP poll share today is what they'd get in 625 odd constituencies. The UKIP general election share was based on their votes in 378 seats.
You would be better off comparing today's opinion polls with pre-2017 General Election UKIP opinion polls, as many UKIP voters will have arrived at their polling booths to find themselves unable to vote UKIP.
* Indeed, it may mean that many true UKIP supporters voted for other parties in 2017 and therefore show as "switchers" now, even though UKIP was always their preferred option.
I need home many seats UKIP would be able to stand in now. Fewer than 100 is my guess.
But there's one fundamental thing that he gets wrong, that makes it very hard to treat his seriously as an economist: he doesn't understand what savings and debt are. (In this he is hardly alone. Economists spend far too little time on the basic building blocks of money, savings and debt.)
That's still not as good as Vicky Price's famous comment, just before she was banged up at Brenda's pleasure, that the only way Greece could repay its debts was by borrowing.
US Republicans reckon that tax cuts pay for themselves, and many left wingers believe that borrowing pays for itself.
Yes I know. But in terms of the sheer gorgeous irony, none of them match the beautiful simplicity of that howler. They have to be explained, for a start, and in such a way that Macdonnell can understand it.
Price's comment was up there with Dubya's finest, which would surely be 'more and more of our imports are coming from abroad.'
Dubya's comment actually taken out of context?
Wasn't he speaking as Governor of Texas and talking about imports into Texas, versus from the rest of America and rest of the world?
I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. Texas of course as one of only two states to have had an independent existence (and the only one that lasted more than a week) has always seen itself a bit differently (hence 'Lone Star State') so it seems possible.
Edit - that would then leave 'when you say you're going to do something and then don't do it, that's trustworthiness,' as his finest gaffe.
I always liked his comment on Al Gore's tax plans “It’s going to require numerous IRA agents.”
What, as a mistake for IRS? Given that IRA is not an acronym which resonates with the Yanks as it does with us, that's really not a show-stopper, surely?
And while I am at it, the French do *not* have a word for entrepreneur. entrepreneur does not mean entrepreneur, it means contractor - as in someone who does a subsidiary part of a job for a fixed fee rather than for a share of the profits. The French for undertaker, for example, is entrepreneur de pompes funèbres, with no connotation of someone who started out burying one person at a time from his parents' basement and has just floated the funeral equivalent of Uber for a billion dollars.
Isn't IRA in America something to do with pension plans?
I think that is right, there's a thing called a Roth IRA which is a SIPP in our terms. My sides are still unsplit by the error.
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
So UKIP still stood in more than half the 650 seats at the 2017 general election and an even higher percentage once you exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland where they stood the fewest candidates.
In the seats they stood, they averaged 4.4%. Assume they wouldn't stand in Northern Ireland under any circumstances, but that in the rest of the country they'd average 2% (which is probably an understatement).
This means the true level of support for UKIP in 2017 was 3.1%.
The pollsters now have the 2017 general election results so weight the
That's irrelevant to the argument*.
The UKIP poll share today is what they'd get in 625 odd constituencies. The UKIP general election share was based on their votes in 378 seats.
You would be better off comparing today's opinion polls with pre-2017 General Election UKIP opinion polls, as many UKIP voters will have arrived at their polling booths to find themselves unable to vote UKIP.
* Indeed, it may mean that many true UKIP supporters voted for other parties in 2017 and therefore show as "switchers" now, even though UKIP was always their preferred option.
The UKIP voteshare is what they got across all 650 seats of the UK, irrespective of whether they stood a candidate or not. The higher the UKIP poll score the more candidates they will field next time, though of course if UKIP are up but do not stand a candidate in a seat that benefits the Tory candidate in that seat.
Look at the polling subsamples, in many if not most polling the main move of June 2017 Tory voters has not been to Labour but to UKIP and that is confirmed by the polling average shift posted earlier.
Just muddled. You can't make any of these conclusions from that comparison.
Average of last ten polls for Labour: 41.3%. It makes no sense to compare that to the real GE result of 40% to say it's been a small shift, rather than to the average of ten polls leading up to the GE which was 35.6%. That's the comparable figure if any is.
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
So UKIP still stood in more than half the 650 seats at the 2017 general election and an even higher percentage once you exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland where they stood the fewest candidates.
In the seats they stood, they averaged 4.4%. Assume they wouldn't stand in Northern Ireland under any circumstances, but that in the rest of the country they'd average 2% (which is probably an understatement).
This means the true level of support for UKIP in 2017 was 3.1%.
The pollsters now have the 2017 general election results so weight the
That's irrelevant to the argument*.
The UKIP poll share today is what they'd get in 625 odd constituencies. The UKIP general election share was based on their votes in 378 seats.
You would be better off comparing today's opinion polls with pre-2017 General Election UKIP opinion polls, as many UKIP voters will have arrived at their polling booths to find themselves unable to vote UKIP.
* Indeed, it may mean that many true UKIP supporters voted for other parties in 2017 and therefore show as "switchers" now, even though UKIP was always their preferred option.
The UKIP voteshare is what they got across all 650 seats of the UK, irrespective of whether they stood a candidate or not. The higher the UKIP and that is confirmed by the polling average shift posted earlier.
Just muddled. You can't make any of these conclusions from that comparison.
Average of last ten polls for Labour: 41.3%. It makes no sense to compare that to the real GE result of 40% to say it's been a small shift, rather than to the average of ten polls leading up to the GE which was 35.6%. That's the comparable figure if any is.
No it isn't as pollsters now know precisely what share of the electorate voted Labour and Tory at the general election and can weigh their polling sample accordingly, that was not the case before the last general election when they were overcompensating for lower youth turnout for Labour.
Rolling average of 10 most recent opinion polls, (including the new Survation poll):
Lab 41.3% Con 39.5% LD 7.3% UKIP 4.2% Greens 2.5%
Changes from the general election:
Lab +0.3% Con -4.0% LD -0.3% UKIP +2.3% Greens +0.8%
So the main movement is from the Tories to UKIP
Yes but UKIP only stood in 378 seats in the 2017 General Election. So their vote share in the election dramatically understated their true level of support.
So UKIP still stood in more than half the 650 seats at the 2017 general election and an even higher percentage once you exclude Scotland and Northern Ireland where they stood the fewest candidates.
In the seats they stood, they averaged 4.4%. Assume they wouldn't stand in Northern Ireland under any circumstances, but that in the rest of the country they'd average 2% (which is probably an understatement).
This means the true level of support for UKIP in 2017 was 3.1%.
The pollsters now have the 2017 general election results so weight the
That's irrelevant to the argument*.
The UKIP poll share today is what they'd get in 625 odd constituencies. The UKIP general election share was based on their votes in 378 seats.
You would be better off comparing today's opinion polls with pre-2017 General Election UKIP opinion polls, as many UKIP voters will have arrived at their polling booths to find themselves unable to vote UKIP.
* Indeed, it may mean that many true UKIP supporters , even though UKIP was always their preferred option.
The UKIP voteshare is what didate or not. The higher the UKIP and that is confirmed by the polling average shift posted earlier.
Just muddled. You can't make any of these conclusions from that comparison.
Average of last ten polls for Labour: 41.3%. It makes no sense to compare that to the real GE result of 40% to say it's been a small shift, rather than to the average of ten polls leading up to the GE which was 35.6%. That's the comparable figure if any is.
No it isn't as pollsters now know precisely what share of the electorate voted Labour and Tory at the general election and can weigh their polling sample accordingly, that was not the case before the last general election when they were overcompensating for lower youth turnout for Labour.
We have no idea how, if, or when the pollsters have modified their methodology. All we have to go on is their record of failure. Until we do these comparisons are meaningless.
Comments
Oh and calling him Jim Bow wee and not Jim Boo hee is a serious infractions.
And saying 'Celebrating the Alamo? What are you French'
https://twitter.com/KirstyStricklan/status/937250451422175233
The difference is, of course, Corbyn is not in government and therefore has the option of masterfully sitting on the fence until the deal is done.
The UKIP poll share today is what they'd get in 625 odd constituencies.
The UKIP general election share was based on their votes in 378 seats.
You would be better off comparing today's opinion polls with pre-2017 General Election UKIP opinion polls, as many UKIP voters will have arrived at their polling booths to find themselves unable to vote UKIP.
* Indeed, it may mean that many true UKIP supporters voted for other parties in 2017 and therefore show as "switchers" now, even though UKIP was always their preferred option.
I'll get my coat...
What is more likely to happen instead is that - if he gets elected at all - it would be either as a minority government and forced in to the position of compromising with other parties, or where he doesn't command the loyalty of his MP's, who undermine his attempts at setting a budget. In that scenario, things would not be so bad, and Corbyn would simply blame whoever or whatever is getting in their way for their failure to deliver everything they promised.
Either way, what eventually happens is that we then get a nasty, authoritarian right wing government to sort out the mess.
I don't see Corbynism as a credible project at all. It has no underlying credible economic strategy. They talk about investing in infrastructure, but when you get in to the detail what they actually want to do is borrowing money to subsidise public services, and essentially plundering the resources of the state to promote their own favoured causes and interest groups in the name of 'equality' . But actually, as Owen Jones often points out and John McDonnell has admitted, it isn't about actually delivering the things they are promising. It is using Parliamentary democracy to turn people against the capitalist system.
And while I am at it, the French do *not* have a word for entrepreneur. entrepreneur does not mean entrepreneur, it means contractor - as in someone who does a subsidiary part of a job for a fixed fee rather than for a share of the profits. The French for undertaker, for example, is entrepreneur de pompes funèbres, with no connotation of someone who started out burying one person at a time from his parents' basement and has just floated the funeral equivalent of Uber for a billion dollars.
Look at the polling subsamples, in many if not most polls the main move of June 2017 Tory voters has not been to Labour but to UKIP and that is confirmed by the polling average shift posted earlier.
Average of last ten polls for Labour: 41.3%. It makes no sense to compare that to the real GE result of 40% to say it's been a small shift, rather than to the average of ten polls leading up to the GE which was 35.6%. That's the comparable figure if any is.
NEW THREAD