Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Can we agree that “Peak Theresa” was the ComRes 25% lead in th

1235»

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    They have not moved at all to any significant degree a 67% or 73% vote for sterling, is still a landslide by any definition

    Look at the big picture. In the midst of Brexit, we are seeing support for the Euro at levels we haven't seen since Blair was campaigning for it. That should tell you something.
    What pro Euro fanatics under Blair have gone back to being pro Euro fanatics?

    The fact there were so few pro Euro fanatics even in 1999 meant that Blair never called a referendum on the Euro as he knew he would lose it and lose it heavily.
    It's far worse than that for your party's future. Brexit is now the formative political experience of millions of people who weren't even born when Blair came to power, and you are rigidly stuck on the wrong side of the argument.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,747

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    welshowl said:

    Probably a bit of confusion in the question, conflating Euro with Remain?

    Interesting was the rejection at big levels in Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and the Czech Republic. EU’s post Brexit issues right there.

    s.
    Surely there will just increasingly be parallel currencies. Bitcoin is obviously a bubble, but just as railways or dot.com bubbles, it is a bubble that foreshadows the future. National currencies debased at whim by governments may be decreasingly desired. Indeed Corbynomics may be the straw that breaks Sterling as a desireable hard currency. Even Bitcoin may be seen as preferrable.
    Bitcoin has shown the limitations of alternative currencies. As a mode of exchange such a volatile currency is useless. It is nothing other than a highly speculative asset class. What people need from a currency is stable and predictable value which allows measurement of profit and loss and the measurement of other things such as wages.

    I think the Bitcoin bubble will prove a major step back for alternatives to national currencies, not a glimpse of the future.
    I agree, Bitcoin is a false prophet. The use of money as a store of value requires stability. My experience in Stockholm, where I struggled to find anyone I could use my SEK cash with, so illuminating. I used my swipe card and was asked what currency that I wished to pay in. Government backed electronic money will drive out the speculators.
    I think that there is a big difference between the development of a cashless society, which seems inevitable, and the elimination of national currencies. The purpose of a currency should be to give flexibility to the system. So our devaluation after the Brexit vote put us nearer to a rate which allows us to balance our purchases and sales.

    At some point the view may be that that flexibility comes at too high a price and positively encourages stupid behaviour by politicians who think that they have more control of the world than they do. This brings around things like the Euro but the price the PIIGS paid for the loss of that flexibility was savage.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    They have not moved at all to any significant degree a 67% or 73% vote for sterling, is still a landslide by any definition

    Look at the big picture. In the midst of Brexit, we are seeing support for the Euro at levels we haven't seen since Blair was campaigning for it. That should tell you something.
    What pro Euro fanatics under Blair have gone back to being pro Euro fanatics?

    The fact there were so few pro Euro fanatics even in 1999 meant that Blair never called a referendum on the Euro as he knew he would lose it and lose it heavily.
    It's far worse than that for your party's future. Brexit is now the formative political experience of millions of people who weren't even born when Blair came to power, and you are rigidly stuck on the wrong side of the argument.
    But, lots of people welcome Brexit. Being on the same side as 17m is a good position to be in.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    I have little doubt that you'll still be able to enjoy visa free travel in Europe even with a blue passport.
    Indeed. Dear God the misconceptions! You could toddle off down the post office in the early 70’s with a photo and get a folded card passport for travel in W Europe there and then. In some ways less hassle than now.
    Time travel is not an option. The world has moved on, even if Leavers have not.
    Quite. But do you think we’re all going to need visas for a 90 day stay in the Dordogne, or Duesseldorf for a business trip?
    Russians do. If we take the 'no deal' option, we'd be in the same position.
    Yeah, right.
    Thankfully it looks like May is not going to let it happen, but U still appeals to far too many Tory MPs.
    Well maybe, just maybe, the EU might like .
    By 2030 it will be as if Brexit had never happened.

    Actually that's not quite true. We'll be in the Euro, whereas we probably wouldn't have been if we'd voted Remain.
    15% more oppose the Euro than voted Leaver rejoining the EU
    33% is +6 on August. At that rate there will be a majority in favour of the Euro by the time Article 50 runs out.
    What utter rubbish. More than 33% backed the Euro in 1999 in some polls and far more thsn 48% backed staying in the EU back then
    I'm simply reporting what the polls say112642793091072
    They have not moved at all to any significant degree, a 67% or 73% vote for sterlin, is still a landslide by any definition
    How do you think that would change with Corbyn and McDonnell in Downing street? If Sterling was being debased, support for a reliable alternative would soar.
    No it wouldn't at all, that would be down to Corbyn and McDonnell's useless policies not sterling, it would just create the conditions for a landslide for the pro sterling Tories if the economy really was that bad under Corbyn. Given Corbyn himself opposes the Euro and McDonnell even more so it would have zero impact on sterling's future
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    HYUFD said:

    They have not moved at all to any significant degree a 67% or 73% vote for sterling, is still a landslide by any definition

    Look at the big picture. In the midst of Brexit, we are seeing support for the Euro at levels we haven't seen since Blair was campaigning for it. That should tell you something.
    That people are confusing EU and eurozone membership? :p
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755

    HYUFD said:

    They have not moved at all to any significant degree a 67% or 73% vote for sterling, is still a landslide by any definition

    Look at the big picture. In the midst of Brexit, we are seeing support for the Euro at levels we haven't seen since Blair was campaigning for it. That should tell you something.
    It tells us that support for joining the Euro has reverted to the mean. Back in December 2001, ICM found public opinion split 58/31% against the Euro, even though 62% thought it inevitable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    They have not moved at all to any significant degree a 67% or 73% vote for sterling, is still a landslide by any definition

    Look at the big picture. In the midst of Brexit, we are seeing support for the Euro at levels we haven't seen since Blair was campaigning for it. That should tell you something.
    What pro Euro fanatics under Blair have gone back to being pro Euro fanatics?

    The fact there were so few pro Euro fanatics even in 1999 meant that Blair never called a referendum on the Euro as he knew he would lose it and lose it heavily.
    It's far worse than that for your party's future. Brexit is now the formative political experience of millions of people who weren't even born when Blair came to power, and you are rigidly stuck on the wrong side of the argument.
    This was a Brexit 17 million voted for despite the Tory leader of the time backing Remain. What an absurd statement to suggest the Tories are now wrong by backing the winning majority in this country
  • RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    They have not moved at all to any significant degree a 67% or 73% vote for sterling, is still a landslide by any definition

    Look at the big picture. In the midst of Brexit, we are seeing support for the Euro at levels we haven't seen since Blair was campaigning for it. That should tell you something.
    That people are confusing EU and eurozone membership? :p
    The way things are going, people may no longer be quite so wrong to conflate them. I'd be interested to know how this rise in support is split between a trend for general europhilia (particularly among the young), versus an acceptance of euro membership being "the price we need to pay" (possibly somewhat reluctantly) to rejoin the EU.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,706

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    They have not moved at all to any significant degree a 67% or 73% vote for sterling, is still a landslide by any definition

    Look at the big picture. In the midst of Brexit, we are seeing support for the Euro at levels we haven't seen since Blair was campaigning for it. That should tell you something.
    That people are confusing EU and eurozone membership? :p
    The way things are going, people may no longer be quite so wrong to conflate them. I'd be interested to know how this rise in support is split between a trend for general europhilia (particularly among the young), versus an acceptance of euro membership being "the price we need to pay" (possibly somewhat reluctantly) to rejoin the EU.
    The fact support for the Euro is 15% below what Remain got means that if the Euro is the price for EU reentry that would finally kill off the prospect of that for good
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    The "everyone piles in and joins the euro ASAP" scenario could go one of several ways too.

    The worst case, particularly if political considerations drive a rapid expansion of the eurozone, is a larger-scale repeat of Greece.

    I hadn't thought of that as an option: I don't think either the EU is particularly keen for new Eurozone members (although that will fade with memories of the crisis), nor are many of the on-EZ countries keen to join.

    I also think it's important to realise there were five different Eurozone crises, which countries suffered from to varying degrees:

    1. There was the property bubble / private debt Eurozone crisis, where countries had housing booms, fuelling personal borrowing and soaring debt levels. This meant that banks were largely insolvent when the crisis hit, and governments were not strong enough to bail them out. This was the Eurozone crisis in Ireland and Spain, and to a lesser extent Portugal.

    2. There was the demographic timebomb crisis, where a diminishing number of workers and a rising number of retirees put a great deal of pressure on already indebted countries. This is the Eurozone crisis that is currently affecting Italy, and to a lesser extent Portugal.

    3. There was the too much government debt crisis, which was fuelled in Greece's case by the government's lying about debt and deficit levels. When the economy went south, the government was unable to respond with fiscal measures as it was too indebted. This was the Greek crisis, and to a lesser extent the Italian one.

    4. There was the competitiveness crisis where countries in the periphery had allowed wages to rise much more quickly than output, due to a mix of inflexible labour markets and robust economic growth in the pre-crisis period. (This was sometimes linked with the property bubble: after all, we're all so rich because of rising house prices.) Spain, Portugal and Greece all suffered from this.

    5. There was the current account crisis which was also tied to 1 and 4. Economies sucked in imports - usually paid for with borrowed money... borrowed with housing debt - leading to them having long tails of overseas liabilities. Spain, Portugal and Greece - again - were the guilty parties here.

    The countries which have recovered best from the Eurozone crises, were those where the problems were tractable. Inflexible labour markets, high levels of personal debt and housing booms are all problems that can be solved (albeit painfully) by government action. (See Ireland and Spain.) Poor demographics and sky high government debt are much bigger issues.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The EU's biggest issue continues to be the split between the Eurozone countries - who will likely continue to integrate - and those on the outside who wish to get no deeper in. (And then there's Italy, who wished they'd never got in the Euro in the first place.)

    It could go one of two ways: it could result in EU fracturing and the non-core countries departing. Or it could result in the EU putting in place a durable settlement for those countries that will never be a part of the single currency bloc.

    18 months ago, I think my money would have been on the former, and I thought we might have been at the forefront of putting together an invigorated EFTA. Instead, we seem to have pissed off those countries most likely to join us.

    Surely there will just increasingly be parallel currencies. Bitcoin is obviously a bubble, but just as railways or dot.com bubbles, it is a bubble that foreshadows the future. National currencies debased at whim by governments may be decreasingly desired. Indeed Corbynomics may be the straw that breaks Sterling as a desireable hard currency. Even Bitcoin may be seen as preferrable.
    Bitcoin has shown the limitations of alternative currencies. As a mode of exchange such a volatile currency is useless. It is nothing other than a highly speculative asset class. What people need from a currency is stable and predictable value which allows measurement of profit and loss and the measurement of other things such as wages.

    I think the Bitcoin bubble will prove a major step back for alternatives to national currencies, not a glimpse of the future.
    I don't.

    Have you heard of Tether? It's a cross between a crypto currency and an ETF. The result is that one tether is worth $1. (Actually, Tether currently trades at $1.01, but it's designed to always be $1, give or take, in the same way that ETFs are worth the same as their components.)

    It brings all the advantages of crpytocurrencies: low transaction fees and anonymous, without the volatility.

    Now: I'm a little concerned with some of the technical choices the Tether team has made, but it's possible to see it becoming the de facto payment mechanism for people (a) seeking to avoid currency controls, (b) seeking privacy, or (c) seeking to buy things they shouldn't.

    It's also possible that something like Tether that was connected to a couple of different currencies (say 40% dollar, 30% Euro, 20% Reminbi, 5% Sterling, 5% Yen) could end up being a global unit of account, which might eventually become untethered (so to speak) from its underlying.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It's starting to feel like you need to have PhD to understand some of the posts on PB these days. Not complaining, though. It's better than reading the Sun or Mirror.
  • @rcs1000, cheers for the informed responses (as always!)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    They have not moved at all to any significant degree a 67% or 73% vote for sterling, is still a landslide by any definition

    Look at the big picture. In the midst of Brexit, we are seeing support for the Euro at levels we haven't seen since Blair was campaigning for it. That should tell you something.
    That people are confusing EU and eurozone membership? :p
    The way things are going, people may no longer be quite so wrong to conflate them. I'd be interested to know how this rise in support is split between a trend for general europhilia (particularly among the young), versus an acceptance of euro membership being "the price we need to pay" (possibly somewhat reluctantly) to rejoin the EU.
    The fact support for the Euro is 15% below what Remain got means that if the Euro is the price for EU reentry that would finally kill off the prospect of that for good
    Never say never. If planes are dropping out of the sky, and food is running short in March 2019, then public opinion could turn. The fact that I think those are very remote possibilities doesn't prevent them from being possibilities.

    To my mind, the worst case scenario for Brexit is that it turns out a bit crap. We have weak and incompetent governments, and low growth. I don't think that would be enough to turn public opinion in favour of the Euro.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    dixiedean said:

    I prefer the burgundy.

    Me too.

    I don’t get what was so iconic about the old passports.
    You are both wrong.
    I’m wrong about my colour preference? I don’t think so.

    I don’t remember the old passports. I do remember having to go through the “Aliens” channel when coming back from Italy aince I was on my mother’s Italian passport.

    “Aliens”. For heaven’s sake.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    kle4 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    kle4 said:
    I think our vote was pathetic. It is not for foreign states to tell others what their capital should be, and even less so to tell other powers whether they can recognise that fact.
    Can Israel dictate to the Palestinians where their capital should be?
    Yes, because they're the occupying power. Which is sort of the problem.
    Even more relevantly, whatever the rights or wrongs of our vote, foreign states tell others what their status or is not all the time - some places tell Israel they are not a country at all, though more acknowledge they are. And one poor place that is very clearly a state, is not recognised by anyone, let alone admitting what their capital is. International relations involves making declarations about other places.
    There aren’t many UN member states whose existence a significant number of countries refuse to recognise.

    I just don’t see how recognising the reality of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which would only change in the event of the state of Israel’s destruction, will make any difference to the ultimate fate of the Palestinians. It’s like Britain only recognising Chinese ‘suzerainty’ over Tibet until 2008.
    I don't see how it will make much difference either, but the point was that is is for foreign states to tell others things, or at least they have always done so to some degree, even if it is silly or pointless.
    Is this silliness or pointlessness something to be encouraged?

    Re Somaliland, a key difference there is that the Somaliland governnent has control over (most) of its nominal territory. The Palestinians have never achieved that.
    Do you think there is anyone in the Palestinian leadership who occasionally thinks to themselves: “Shit. We should have taken the state the UN voted to give us all those decades ago.”
    No because it wasn't a sustainable state.
    What made it unsustainable? Did the UN deliberately create an unsustainable state? Seems an odd thing to do.
    The population in 1948 was 30% Jewish 70% Arab. How was it possible to create a democratic state that remained Jewish with these figures?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The EU's biggest issue continues to be the split between the Eurozone countries - who will likely continue to integrate - and those on the outside who wish to get no deeper in. (And then there's Italy, who wished they'd never got in the Euro in the first place.)

    It could go one of two ways: it could result in EU fracturing and the non-core countries departing. Or it could result in the EU putting in place a durable settlement for those countries that will never be a part of the single currency bloc.

    18 months ago, I think my money would have been on the former, and I thought we might have been at the forefront of putting together an invigorated EFTA. Instead, we seem to have pissed off those countries most likely to join us.

    Surely there will just increasingly be parallel currencies. Bitcoin is obviously a bubble, but just as railways or dot.com bubbles, it is a bubble that foreshadows the future. National currencies debased at whim by governments may be decreasingly desired. Indeed Corbynomics may be the straw that breaks Sterling as a desireable hard currency. Even Bitcoin may be seen as preferrable.
    Bitcoin has shown the limitations of alternative currencies. As a mode of exchange such a volatile currency is useless. It is nothing other than a highly speculative asset class. What people need from a currency is stable and predictable value which allows measurement of profit and loss and the measurement of other things such as wages.

    I think the Bitcoin bubble will prove a major step back for alternatives to national currencies, not a glimpse of the future.
    I don't.

    Have you heard of Tether? It's a cross between a crypto currency and an ETF. The result is that one tether is worth $1. (Actually, Tether currently trades at $1.01, but it's designed to always be $1, give or take, in the same way that ETFs are worth the same as their components.)

    It brings all the advantages of crpytocurrencies: low transaction fees and anonymous, without the volatility.

    Now: I'm a little concerned with some of the technical choices the Tether team has made, but it's possible to see it becoming the de facto payment mechanism for people (a) seeking to avoid currency controls, (b) seeking privacy, or (c) seeking to buy things they shouldn't.

    It's also possible that something like Tether that was connected to a couple of different currencies (say 40% dollar, 30% Euro, 20% Reminbi, 5% Sterling, 5% Yen) could end up being a global unit of account, which might eventually become untethered (so to speak) from its underlying.
    Tether smells like a scam.
This discussion has been closed.