Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alastair Meeks on predicting politics better

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited January 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alastair Meeks on predicting politics better

“How could I have known?” is the cry of palookas at the card tables everywhere.  It’s a cry that’s been heard much in political circles in the last few years.  In short order, David Cameron won an overall majority in 2015, Leave won the EU referendum in June 2016, Donald Trump won the presidential election in November 2016 and Theresa May lost her overall majority in June last year.  None of these events had been expected by the pundits.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,836
    really first ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,836
    Perhaps.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,967
    Bah. Mine thirst got stollen. ;)

    Thanks, Alastair.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,836
    We all like to build stories around the facts that we have to hand. A particular problem is that political pundits are particularly good fabulists and their stories grip their audiences...
    Successful political leaders are even better fabulists - or to be generous, constructors of persuasive narratives. There is nothing so persuasive as a good story.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,836

    Bah. Mine thirst got stollen. ;)

    Thanks, Alastair.

    An unconvincing narrative.
    You claimed a well deserved third.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,967
    Nigelb said:

    Bah. Mine thirst got stollen. ;)

    Thanks, Alastair.

    An unconvincing narrative.
    You claimed a well deserved third.
    The last ten years of politics forms an unconvincing narrative. Or perhaps a waking nightmare. ;)

    Did it really all happen, or am I, like SeanT, going to wake up in a drugged stupour on some South American hillside ...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,836
    It is a good article, Alastair.
    The recent Oprah story is a goodish example. I didn't really believe it, but I believed it possible enough to have a dabble just in time to get in and out, before the narrative started including the friend of cranks bit...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088
    Farage is live on LBC now talking about a second referendum:
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,749
    Nonsense from Meeks.

    There was a convincing winner in the UK General Election 2017. Not Jeremy. Not Theresa. The only real winner was the YouGov MRP model, which convincingly predicted the result.

    Hamiltonian Monte Carlo implemented on Stan predicted that Kensington and Portsmouth South and Canterbury would fall. It predicted that the Tories would fail to get an overall majority.

    The predictions were greeted with derision. The predictions came to pass.

    The convincing thing is not that the overall result was right -- it is that the detailed seat predictions were also right.
  • Interesting you mention Nate Silver. There was a really good chap on this site who used to give jolly good predictions called something like Antifrank.That was just before it was degraded by Brexit bores like Alastair Meeks.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    So how Mr Corbyn do you know that you will be prime minister in 2018, or indeed at all?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 788
    Off topic but does anyone know why the expanded Housing, Communities and Local Government department was also re-christened a "Ministry"?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,439
    Mr Meeks. I'm sorry, but this seems well below your actual understanding of betting. I don't doubt your betting acumen for the world, but it hasn't been apparent in the above piece.

    I think mostly that the best political bets to place here and now are almost non-existent. There has never been a better time to sit on your hands, to steal the financial market's phrase.


  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,796
    edited January 11

    Nigelb said:

    Bah. Mine thirst got stollen. ;)

    Thanks, Alastair.

    An unconvincing narrative.
    You claimed a well deserved third.
    The last ten years of politics forms an unconvincing narrative. Or perhaps a waking nightmare. ;)

    Did it really all happen, or am I, like SeanT, going to wake up in a drugged stupour on some South American hillside ...
    You may wake up in a drugged stupour on some South American hillside.

    Last ten year years still happened though.

    EDIT: The best you can hope for is that you don't wake up with SeanT....
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,113
    edited January 11

    Farage is live on LBC now talking about a second referendum:

    Like I posted earlier,not a good move from Farage today.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,796
    I reckon the best betting position for the coming few years is "nothing much changes".

    No second referendum. Brexit happens.

    Theresa May hangs around several more years.

    Jeremy Corbyn doesn't ever become Prime Minister.

    Trump serves a full term.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088

    No second referendum. Brexit happens.

    Given that this is your position, where do you expect the customs border with Ireland to be? We need one, or whatever deal we get will not be 'proper Brexit'.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197
    Farage having a lot of fun.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197
    Britain really is two nations with not much love or understanding between them.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,016
    Thanks for the article AM.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 780
    We have a Ministry of Justice and a Ministry of Defence. Presumably so as not to confuse the Americans?

    I saw something somewhere about a Ministry of Magic, but that can not be right?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    Omnium said:

    Mr Meeks. I'm sorry, but this seems well below your actual understanding of betting. I don't doubt your betting acumen for the world, but it hasn't been apparent in the above piece.

    I think mostly that the best political bets to place here and now are almost non-existent. There has never been a better time to sit on your hands, to steal the financial market's phrase.


    UK to leave the EU by 29th March 2019 at over evens on Betfair is the outstanding one.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 780
    Is the world become more uncertain? The financial crash was very unlikely to happen according to the models?

    Is this a new Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? The more certain we think we know what is going to happen, the more uncertain it becomes?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,016
    Having looked at the construction output data in more detail I noticed that new house construction is currently running at its highest level for over twenty years (and as its currently double what it was 20 years ago then it must be the highest for at least 30 years):

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/datasets/outputintheconstructionindustry

    Now that's not surprising from a personal experience or other people's annecdotal basis but it is surprising that this has not received more media attention.

    Hopefully this will soon result in home ownership levels rising again.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Back in the 16th century England had its first Brexit -Henry V111's Break with Rome and Catholic Europe because he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn: Hexit. The betting markets believed that Hexit would never happen, that Henry would be overthrown. But they got it wrong. By 1534 England's Hexit was complete, and Anne Boleyn was queen.

    The betting markets were taken completely by surprise in 1536 when Anne Boleyn, the cause of Hexit was suddenly executed.

    Princess Mary and the Remoaners wanted to reverse Hexit, but the betting markets believed that she would never rule England. After all, no woman had ever ruled England. But they got it wrong again. in 1553 Mary not only became queen, but she also reversed Hexit, returning England to Rome and to European Catholic control burning anyone who believed in Hexit.

    The betting markets now announced that Hexit had been defeated and that England would stay in Catholic Europe. Surely they would get it right this time round?

    well, no. Because Mary died, Elizabeth became Queen and Hexit happened all over again -permanently.

    The betting markets are nearly always wrong -nothing changes.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 804
    edited January 11
    Thanks for the article, very well written.

    I often disagree with you on conclusions, but I always enjoy your articles. Thank you for the effort involved, it's much appreciated.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,796

    No second referendum. Brexit happens.

    Given that this is your position, where do you expect the customs border with Ireland to be? We need one, or whatever deal we get will not be 'proper Brexit'.
    I suspect the Irish border will be an "interim" position that is at odds with the rest of the EUs positions on everything, with a settled intention that nobody will quite get round to resolving its interim status.

    It will be like Berwick upon Tweed still being at war with Russia, after the Treaty of Paris
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,488

    Is the world become more uncertain? The financial crash was very unlikely to happen according to the models?

    Is this a new Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? The more certain we think we know what is going to happen, the more uncertain it becomes?

    No.

    The future has always been unknowable, and the credulous have always believed that seers, scryers, prophets, sibyls and most recently, experts, are exceptions to this exception-free rule.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,547
    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Is the world become more uncertain? The financial crash was very unlikely to happen according to the models?

    Is this a new Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? The more certain we think we know what is going to happen, the more uncertain it becomes?

    No.

    The future has always been unknowable, and the credulous have always believed that seers, scryers, prophets, sibyls and most recently, experts, are exceptions to this exception-free rule.
    If the future has always been unknowable, how do you know it will remain unknowable?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641
    edited January 11
    Omnium said:

    Mr Meeks. I'm sorry, but this seems well below your actual understanding of betting. I don't doubt your betting acumen for the world, but it hasn't been apparent in the above piece.

    I think mostly that the best political bets to place here and now are almost non-existent. There has never been a better time to sit on your hands, to steal the financial market's phrase.


    I think that the unpredictability of polling can be exaggerated.

    I made money on Brexit as the polls had it pretty much a coin toss, but the odds were for Remain, therefore the value was Leave. I thought the same too in the POTUS so did well on betting Trump in the so called Blue Firewall, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for example.

    All too often people are not willing to believe the polling. @Chris_from_Paris made me about £800 betting on Macron. There were decent odds even when he was clearly leading as pundits waffled on about shy Le Pen voters (like Kippers, they never seem shy to me!).

    Successful political betting is about spotting value, and this is easier than the over anyalysed sports markets where little value escapes the bookies*. When markets are pitching a coin toss as nailed on for one side, get on the other. Pundits also overestimate their accuracy. I have made money on some elections by betting on both extremes against the middle. I backed Hillary to win Red States as well as Trump to win Blue.

    * I generally lose a little money sport betting. My exception was when Leicester won the PL. I had £1 ew at 3000/1, but topped this up at 20/1 in Dec 15 after we had been top of the League for a month. The successes may have faded, but I thought there was a much better than 5% chance that we would keep winning. I tipped it here.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Broken sleazy Brexit on the slide.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Stay out of the argument. He really isn't that bothered IMO.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,016

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Broken sleazy Brexit on the slide.
    As this thread discusses predictions what happened to your prediction that Sturgeon would implement Scottish UDI in 2017 ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088
    Foxy said:

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Stay out of the argument. He really isn't that bothered IMO.
    It’s interesting that Labour voters are now more united behind Remain than Tory voters are behind Leave.

    And if the contest was re-run, 75% of Labour voters would back remain with only 25% for leave. Among Conservative voters 30% would vote remain and 70% leave.

    There’s no electoral future for the Tories in being Bluekip.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,488
    Jonathan said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Is the world become more uncertain? The financial crash was very unlikely to happen according to the models?

    Is this a new Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? The more certain we think we know what is going to happen, the more uncertain it becomes?

    No.

    The future has always been unknowable, and the credulous have always believed that seers, scryers, prophets, sibyls and most recently, experts, are exceptions to this exception-free rule.
    If the future has always been unknowable, how do you know it will remain unknowable?
    A good point. Boring old inductive reasoning - as in, the sun has always risen in the morning, therefore it always will rise in the morning. Unsatisfactory (and in the very long run not even true), but useful as a rule of thumb.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,016
    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 317
    The big one I think is just that races have been tight. The polls in the U.S. presidential race had it not far off nationally, just struggled to pick up that Trump would land votes quite so efficiently. Plus, as Nate Silver and co are prone to saying - the thing about a tight polling lead is that 30% of the time it will go against you. Some have to. There's a similar pattern with 2015 and Brexit - a very tight vote where pollsters were made to look more foolish than they perhaps were by the conventional wisdom coming down so strongly one way - in 2015, a hung parliament, in 2016 that people would ultimately come to their senses and vote remain. They were only wrong within the MOE but it was enough for a shock outcome.

    The exception is 2017, where with the exception of YouGov pollsters were way out, as was the conventional wisdom. There are a few combinations of plausible reasons why this happened, the first is that pollsters over adjusted for 2015 and down-weighted Labour on the assumption their 2015 undershoot was a permanent phenomena. Several factors meant this was not the case - Momentum's weight of numbers providing a GOTV operation that significantly firmed up the youth vote, revenge remainers who in the past might have voted Tory with their wallet but were so disgusted at Brexit and in particular May's Little England, net curtain twitching version of it that they dropped any misgivings to protest and stymie her, and ex-Labour Brexiteers failing to switch or turn out for the Tories in quite the numbers they did in the referendum. I remember canvassing in 2015 on an estate and meeting voters who were resolutely determined not to vote to show their contempt for all politicians, it seems plausible some of these people treated 2016 as a one-off chance to kick the establishment but weren't going to change their habits permanently. Some did, of course - but not in the numbers liberal voters switched from the Tories to Labour.

    The result? These trends were ignored by pollsters and all of us because Corbyn is unthinkably useless, and the lessons of 2015 had been absorbed too enthusiastically.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Broken sleazy Brexit on the slide.
    As this thread discusses predictions what happened to your prediction that Sturgeon would implement Scottish UDI in 2017 ?
    It wasn't a serious prediction. :)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,016
    Foxy said:

    Omnium said:

    Mr Meeks. I'm sorry, but this seems well below your actual understanding of betting. I don't doubt your betting acumen for the world, but it hasn't been apparent in the above piece.

    I think mostly that the best political bets to place here and now are almost non-existent. There has never been a better time to sit on your hands, to steal the financial market's phrase.


    I think that the unpredictability of polling can be exaggerated.

    I made money on Brexit as the polls had it pretty much a coin toss, but the odds were for Remain, therefore the value was Leave. I thought the same too in the POTUS so did well on betting Trump in the so called Blue Firewall, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for example.

    All too often people are not willing to believe the polling. @Chris_from_Paris made me about £800 betting on Macron. There were decent odds even when he was clearly leading as pundits waffled on about shy Le Pen voters (like Kippers, they never seem shy to me!).

    Successful political betting is about spotting value, and this is easier than the over anyalysed sports markets where little value escapes the bookies*. When markets are pitching a coin toss as nailed on for one side, get on the other. Pundits also overestimate their accuracy. I have made money on some elections by betting on both extremes against the middle. I backed Hillary to win Red States as well as Trump to win Blue.

    * I generally lose a little money sport betting. My exception was when Leicester won the PL. I had £1 ew at 3000/1, but topped this up at 20/1 in Dec 15 after we had been top of the League for a month. The successes may have faded, but I thought there was a much better than 5% chance that we would keep winning. I tipped it here.
    Alabama Seante was another example of non-even odds in what seemed like (and was) a coin toss contest.

    Betting on the extremes does give the benefit of not being bothered if you lose whereas an odds on bet which loses can be very aggravating and which IMO should only be done when you're happy for it to lose in 'real world' if not betting terms.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641

    Foxy said:

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Stay out of the argument. He really isn't that bothered IMO.
    It’s interesting that Labour voters are now more united behind Remain than Tory voters are behind Leave.

    And if the contest was re-run, 75% of Labour voters would back remain with only 25% for leave. Among Conservative voters 30% would vote remain and 70% leave.

    There’s no electoral future for the Tories in being Bluekip.
    There are two reasons for left leaning voters to incline to Remain.

    1) Because it is the right decision for Britain.

    2) Because it annoys the Tories*.

    It is why Referendums are a poor way to decide important issues. Voters are pretty fickle, flighty and often irrational. This is not a good base for formulating policy, which is why ours is a representative democracy rather than govern by perpetual plebiscites.

    Of course, as the Tories were for Remain in Brexref 16, that was a reason to vote Leave!

  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,905

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

    I see where Williamson is going and we can't go on indefinitely with valuations based on 1991 prices and a £3.5 million house paying the same as one costing £350k.

    That said, we need a more reasoned and consistent approach - creating new bands to take into account higher value properties up to £2 million and recognising the truth that houses have risen in value in most parts of the country by a considerable amount since 1991.

    So, the bands need to be redefined and perhaps extended - I'd suggest house prices have roughly doubled since 1991 so the top of the bands would be £700k now so add extra bands for up to £1 million, £1million to £1.5 million and £1.5 million to £2 million

    The median level remains Band D with Band E remaining 120% of D, Band F paying 140% of D and so on meaning a new Band I property would pay 200% of Band D.

    Do we retain the single person discount ? Yes but what about the Unoccupied property discount ? Arguably no.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    During the campaign, Com Res gave gigantic leads for Remain. Even their final poll had Remain ahead 54/46.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480

    Foxy said:

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Stay out of the argument. He really isn't that bothered IMO.
    It’s interesting that Labour voters are now more united behind Remain than Tory voters are behind Leave.

    And if the contest was re-run, 75% of Labour voters would back remain with only 25% for leave. Among Conservative voters 30% would vote remain and 70% leave.

    There’s no electoral future for the Tories in being Bluekip.
    If one is right wing, Brexit is the logical position to take.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,513
    You just can't keep a good man down. - Toby Young's rejoinder to the twaterati.
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/toby-young-once-more-unto-the-breach/
  • stodge said:

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

    I see where Williamson is going and we can't go on indefinitely with valuations based on 1991 prices and a £3.5 million house paying the same as one costing £350k.

    That said, we need a more reasoned and consistent approach - creating new bands to take into account higher value properties up to £2 million and recognising the truth that houses have risen in value in most parts of the country by a considerable amount since 1991.

    So, the bands need to be redefined and perhaps extended - I'd suggest house prices have roughly doubled since 1991 so the top of the bands would be £700k now so add extra bands for up to £1 million, £1million to £1.5 million and £1.5 million to £2 million

    The median level remains Band D with Band E remaining 120% of D, Band F paying 140% of D and so on meaning a new Band I property would pay 200% of Band D.

    Do we retain the single person discount ? Yes but what about the Unoccupied property discount ? Arguably no.
    I have maintained this view for a long time. New bands are needed at the higher level.

    Also punitive increases for those who leave the property empty or are holiday homes (upto 500 % would not be unreasonable)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641
    stodge said:

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

    I see where Williamson is going and we can't go on indefinitely with valuations based on 1991 prices and a £3.5 million house paying the same as one costing £350k.

    That said, we need a more reasoned and consistent approach - creating new bands to take into account higher value properties up to £2 million and recognising the truth that houses have risen in value in most parts of the country by a considerable amount since 1991.

    So, the bands need to be redefined and perhaps extended - I'd suggest house prices have roughly doubled since 1991 so the top of the bands would be £700k now so add extra bands for up to £1 million, £1million to £1.5 million and £1.5 million to £2 million

    The median level remains Band D with Band E remaining 120% of D, Band F paying 140% of D and so on meaning a new Band I property would pay 200% of Band D.

    Do we retain the single person discount ? Yes but what about the Unoccupied property discount ? Arguably no.
    It does seem strange that Tories are outraged that we do not update Parliamentary Constituencies regularly to reflect demographic changes, yet have a fit of vapours when suggesting that Council Tax bands may occasionally need updating. :)
  • Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Stay out of the argument. He really isn't that bothered IMO.
    It’s interesting that Labour voters are now more united behind Remain than Tory voters are behind Leave.

    And if the contest was re-run, 75% of Labour voters would back remain with only 25% for leave. Among Conservative voters 30% would vote remain and 70% leave.

    There’s no electoral future for the Tories in being Bluekip.
    If one is right wing, Brexit is the logical position to take.
    Or Corbyn otherwise his state aid and nationalisation will be outlawed
  • Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

    I see where Williamson is going and we can't go on indefinitely with valuations based on 1991 prices and a £3.5 million house paying the same as one costing £350k.

    That said, we need a more reasoned and consistent approach - creating new bands to take into account higher value properties up to £2 million and recognising the truth that houses have risen in value in most parts of the country by a considerable amount since 1991.

    So, the bands need to be redefined and perhaps extended - I'd suggest house prices have roughly doubled since 1991 so the top of the bands would be £700k now so add extra bands for up to £1 million, £1million to £1.5 million and £1.5 million to £2 million

    The median level remains Band D with Band E remaining 120% of D, Band F paying 140% of D and so on meaning a new Band I property would pay 200% of Band D.

    Do we retain the single person discount ? Yes but what about the Unoccupied property discount ? Arguably no.
    It does seem strange that Tories are outraged that we do not update Parliamentary Constituencies regularly to reflect demographic changes, yet have a fit of vapours when suggesting that Council Tax bands may occasionally need updating. :)
    We have had it in Wales some years ago but it is a big task with most homes needing new valuation visits then years of appeals. Mind you it is long overdue
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,749
    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

    I see where Williamson is going and we can't go on indefinitely with valuations based on 1991 prices and a £3.5 million house paying the same as one costing £350k.

    That said, we need a more reasoned and consistent approach - creating new bands to take into account higher value properties up to £2 million and recognising the truth that houses have risen in value in most parts of the country by a considerable amount since 1991.

    So, the bands need to be redefined and perhaps extended - I'd suggest house prices have roughly doubled since 1991 so the top of the bands would be £700k now so add extra bands for up to £1 million, £1million to £1.5 million and £1.5 million to £2 million

    The median level remains Band D with Band E remaining 120% of D, Band F paying 140% of D and so on meaning a new Band I property would pay 200% of Band D.

    Do we retain the single person discount ? Yes but what about the Unoccupied property discount ? Arguably no.
    It does seem strange that Tories are outraged that we do not update Parliamentary Constituencies regularly to reflect demographic changes, yet have a fit of vapours when suggesting that Council Tax bands may occasionally need updating. :)
    But, it seems that it was the Labour Party (particularly Andrew Gwynne MP) who had the vapours.

    That is why Williamson went (or so the reports suggest).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    For all the talk of the bad polls of recent years remember in 2015 while no final polls (except for 1 unpublished Survation) predicted Cameron would win a majority, none predicted an Ed Miliband majority either, in the EU referendum the final ICM, TNS and Opinium polls all predicted Leave would win, in 2017 no final polls showed May getting her hoped for landslide of a 100+ seats and Survation predicted a hung Parliament and in the US most polls predicted Hillary would win the Popular vote and she did that, it was the EC they got wrong (though Trafalgar Group predicted Trump would win Michigan and Florida)
  • HYUFD said:

    For all the talk of the bad polls of recent years remember in 2015 while no final polls (except for 1 unpublished Survation) predicted Cameron would win a majority, none predicted an Ed Miliband majority either, in the EU referendum the final ICM, TNS and Opinium polls all predicted Leave would win, in 2017 no final polls showed May getting her hoped for landslide of a 100+ seats and Survation predicted a hung Parliament and in the US most polls predicted Hillary would win the Popular vote and she did that, it was the EC they got wrong (though Trafalgar Group predicted Trump would win Michigan and Florida)

    I have to say I admire your knowledge of polling and outcomes
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,798

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    Foxy said:

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Stay out of the argument. He really isn't that bothered IMO.
    It’s interesting that Labour voters are now more united behind Remain than Tory voters are behind Leave.

    And if the contest was re-run, 75% of Labour voters would back remain with only 25% for leave. Among Conservative voters 30% would vote remain and 70% leave.

    There’s no electoral future for the Tories in being Bluekip.
    That contradicts most recent polling and Comres' final EU referendum poll was completely wrong and of course given only 58% of Tories voted Leave, 70% now backing Leave is still 12% more than in 2016.

    Indeed failing to back Brexit would be fatal for the Tories given Yougov today has the biggest movement since the general election from the Tories going to UKIP NOT Labour. Labour meanwhile has seen its biggest movement to the LDs so in a sense the Tories need to become more pro Brexit and Labour more pro Remain (though Labour faces the problem most of its seats voted Leave even if not most of its voters).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,798
    Farage busy backtracking on 2nd ref in Telegraph. Now saying he doesn't want one, but Leavers need to be prepared for Parliament to vote for one.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/11/do-not-want-second-vote-brexit-fellow-leavers-must-ready-fight/

    [Pall wall]
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641
    edited January 11

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

    I see where Williamson is going and we can't go on indefinitely with valuations based on 1991 prices and a £3.5 million house paying the same as one costing £350k.

    That said, we need a more reasoned and consistent approach - creating new bands to take into account higher value properties up to £2 million and recognising the truth that houses have risen in value in most parts of the country by a considerable amount since 1991.

    So, the bands need to be redefined and perhaps extended - I'd suggest house prices have roughly doubled since 1991 so the top of the bands would be £700k now so add extra bands for up to £1 million, £1million to £1.5 million and £1.5 million to £2 million

    The median level remains Band D with Band E remaining 120% of D, Band F paying 140% of D and so on meaning a new Band I property would pay 200% of Band D.

    Do we retain the single person discount ? Yes but what about the Unoccupied property discount ? Arguably no.
    It does seem strange that Tories are outraged that we do not update Parliamentary Constituencies regularly to reflect demographic changes, yet have a fit of vapours when suggesting that Council Tax bands may occasionally need updating. :)
    But, it seems that it was the Labour Party (particularly Andrew Gwynne MP) who had the vapours.

    That is why Williamson went (or so the reports suggest).
    That is more a matter of going rogue. McDonnell is incharge of tax policy, and jealous of his prerogatives.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,513
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Stay out of the argument. He really isn't that bothered IMO.
    It’s interesting that Labour voters are now more united behind Remain than Tory voters are behind Leave.

    And if the contest was re-run, 75% of Labour voters would back remain with only 25% for leave. Among Conservative voters 30% would vote remain and 70% leave.

    There’s no electoral future for the Tories in being Bluekip.
    That contradicts most recent polling and Comres' final EU referendum poll was completely wrong and of course given only 58% of Tories voted Leave, 70% now backing Leave is still 12% more than in 2016.

    Indeed failing to back Brexit would be fatal for the Tories given Yougov today has the biggest movement since the general election from the Tories going to UKIP NOT Labour. Labour meanwhile has seen its biggest movement to the LDs so in a sense the Tories need to become more pro Brexit and Labour more pro Remain (though Labour faces the problem most of its seats voted Leave even if not most of its voters).
    Referendums polarise.
    Why is that a surprise?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    HYUFD said:

    For all the talk of the bad polls of recent years remember in 2015 while no final polls (except for 1 unpublished Survation) predicted Cameron would win a majority, none predicted an Ed Miliband majority either, in the EU referendum the final ICM, TNS and Opinium polls all predicted Leave would win, in 2017 no final polls showed May getting her hoped for landslide of a 100+ seats and Survation predicted a hung Parliament and in the US most polls predicted Hillary would win the Popular vote and she did that, it was the EC they got wrong (though Trafalgar Group predicted Trump would win Michigan and Florida)

    I have to say I admire your knowledge of polling and outcomes
    Thankyou
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,749
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

    I see where Williamson is going and we can't go on indefinitely with valuations based on 1991 prices and a £3.5 million house paying the same as one costing £350k.

    That said, we need a more reasoned and consistent approach - creating new bands to take into account higher value properties up to £2 million and recognising the truth that houses have risen in value in most parts of the country by a considerable amount since 1991.

    So, the bands need to be redefined and perhaps extended - I'd suggest house prices have roughly doubled since 1991 so the top of the bands would be £700k now so add extra bands for up to £1 million, £1million to £1.5 million and £1.5 million to £2 million

    The median level remains Band D with Band E remaining 120% of D, Band F paying 140% of D and so on meaning a new Band I property would pay 200% of Band D.

    Do we retain the single person discount ? Yes but what about the Unoccupied property discount ? Arguably no.
    It does seem strange that Tories are outraged that we do not update Parliamentary Constituencies regularly to reflect demographic changes, yet have a fit of vapours when suggesting that Council Tax bands may occasionally need updating. :)
    But, it seems that it was the Labour Party (particularly Andrew Gwynne MP) who had the vapours.

    That is why Williamson went (or so the reports suggest).
    That is more a matter of going rogue. McDonnell is in charge of tax policy, and jealous of his prerogatives.
    What’s the big deal, though? It seems an innocuous enough suggestion (after all Big_G supports it).

    And it was just a suggestion. Are things already so dictatorial at the top of Corby’s team that a slip confines you to the outer darkness?

    I can’t see why it is a resigning matter.

  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

    I see where Williamson is going and we can't go on indefinitely with valuations based on 1991 prices and a £3.5 million house paying the same as one costing £350k.

    That said, we need a more reasoned and consistent approach - creating new bands to take into account higher value properties up to £2 million and recognising the truth that houses have risen in value in most parts of the country by a considerable amount since 1991.

    So, the bands need to be redefined and perhaps extended - I'd suggest house prices have roughly doubled since 1991 so the top of the bands would be £700k now so add extra bands for up to £1 million, £1million to £1.5 million and £1.5 million to £2 million

    The median level remains Band D with Band E remaining 120% of D, Band F paying 140% of D and so on meaning a new Band I property would pay 200% of Band D.

    Do we retain the single person discount ? Yes but what about the Unoccupied property discount ? Arguably no.
    It does seem strange that Tories are outraged that we do not update Parliamentary Constituencies regularly to reflect demographic changes, yet have a fit of vapours when suggesting that Council Tax bands may occasionally need updating. :)
    But, it seems that it was the Labour Party (particularly Andrew Gwynne MP) who had the vapours.

    That is why Williamson went (or so the reports suggest).
    That is more a matter of going rogue. McDonnell is in charge of tax policy, and jealous of his prerogatives.
    What’s the big deal, though? It seems an innocuous enough suggestion (after all Big_G supports it).

    And it was just a suggestion. Are things already so dictatorial at the top of Corby’s team that a slip confines you to the outer darkness?

    I can’t see why it is a resigning matter.

    I support the increase in bands and punitive rises for empty property and holiday homes but not the huge increases Williamson proposed on existing bands that could be labour's dementia tax in England
  • Scott_P said:
    Pity Farage has rowed back on it tonight - but who would trust Farage
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,749

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    stodge said:

    So what's the story about Chris Williamson's resignation ?

    His council tax suggestion does seem pretty reasonable to me.

    I see where Williamson is going and we can't go on indefinitely with valuations based on 1991 prices and a £3.5 million house paying the same as one costing £350k.

    That said, we need a more reasoned and consistent approach - creating new bands to take into account higher value properties up to £2 million and recognising the truth that houses have risen in value in most parts of the country by a considerable amount since 1991.

    So, the bands need to be redefined and perhaps extended - I'd suggest house prices have roughly doubled since 1991 so the top of the bands would be £700k now so add extra bands for up to £1 million, £1million to £1.5 million and £1.5 million to £2 million

    The median level remains Band D with Band E remaining 120% of D, Band F paying 140% of D and so on meaning a new Band I property would pay 200% of Band D.

    Do we retain the single person discount ? Yes but what about the Unoccupied property discount ? Arguably no.
    It does seem strange that Tories are outraged that we do not update Parliamentary Constituencies regularly to reflect demographic changes, yet have a fit of vapours when suggesting that Council Tax bands may occasionally need updating. :)
    But, it seems that it was the Labour Party (particularly Andrew Gwynne MP) who had the vapours.

    That is why Williamson went (or so the reports suggest).
    That is more a matter of going rogue. McDonnell is in charge of tax policy, and jealous of his prerogatives.
    What’s the big deal, though? It seems an innocuous enough suggestion (after all Big_G supports it).

    And it was just a suggestion. Are things already so dictatorial at the top of Corby’s team that a slip confines you to the outer darkness?

    I can’t see why it is a resigning matter.

    I support the increase in bands and punitive rises for empty property and holiday homes but not the huge increases Williamson proposed on existing bands that could be labour's dementia tax in England
    As you should know, it is almost impossible to tax holiday homes.

    Owners then just advertise them as holiday lets, claim small business relief, and so pay no Council tax whatsoever.

    It happens all over North Wales.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641

    HYUFD said:

    For all the talk of the bad polls of recent years remember in 2015 while no final polls (except for 1 unpublished Survation) predicted Cameron would win a majority, none predicted an Ed Miliband majority either, in the EU referendum the final ICM, TNS and Opinium polls all predicted Leave would win, in 2017 no final polls showed May getting her hoped for landslide of a 100+ seats and Survation predicted a hung Parliament and in the US most polls predicted Hillary would win the Popular vote and she did that, it was the EC they got wrong (though Trafalgar Group predicted Trump would win Michigan and Florida)

    I have to say I admire your knowledge of polling and outcomes
    If we refer back to an excellent website that summarised the polling for the 2 weeks pre referendum, published the day before the vote, the polling was hardly clear cut:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/22/two-massive-poll-boosts-for-remain-with-voting-starting-in-less-than-nine-hours/

    Tis worth reading the comments below, demonstrating how little most of us were right!

    It looked a coin toss, yet Remain was 1/4. The betting value was Leave, based upon polling.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088
    The new ComRes poll suggests the BMG poll with Remain 10% ahead in December was not an outlier.

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/16/new-brexit-poll-shows-people-back-remain-leave-10-points-7165717/


  • That is more a matter of going rogue. McDonnell is in charge of tax policy, and jealous of his prerogatives.

    What’s the big deal, though? It seems an innocuous enough suggestion (after all Big_G supports it).

    And it was just a suggestion. Are things already so dictatorial at the top of Corby’s team that a slip confines you to the outer darkness?

    I can’t see why it is a resigning matter.



    I support the increase in bands and punitive rises for empty property and holiday homes but not the huge increases Williamson proposed on existing bands that could be labour's dementia tax in England

    As you should know, it is almost impossible to tax holiday homes.

    Owners then just advertise them as holiday lets, claim small business relief, and so pay no Council tax whatsoever.

    It happens all over North Wales.

    ..................................................................................................................................................................

    That is a matter for individual Councils. My Company was involved in the last revaluation of Council Tax in Wales and every domestic home was visited, sometimes by drive past, others by internal inspection and it caused a large number of appeals. But it is the right thing to do
  • The new ComRes poll suggests the BMG poll with Remain 10% ahead in December was not an outlier.

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/16/new-brexit-poll-shows-people-back-remain-leave-10-points-7165717/

    It is not going to change anything - even Farage has rowed back tonight
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,433
    edited January 11
    Twitter embeds aren't showing on this site for me today, has anyone else had that issue?

    Seeing a lot of blank posts but then if I hover my mouse over the post in the right spot it finds a link that can be clicked through to Twitter.

    EDIT: This is happening on both Chrome and Firefox.
  • Absolutely first rate header, I thought.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.

    Leave could mean WTO/no deal, plain CETA, CETA+, EEA minus, or (as is likely) Theresa's Florence deal with some compromises with the EU.

    I suspect present polling is testing the temperature of negotiations that are "mid-way" and, given the trend, influenced by opinion on Theresa May and her Government post the GE2017 disaster as well.

    What's on offer in any new vote would be so crucial to the campaign, and how public opinion would develop once they started engaging with the issue again, that current polling simply isn't reliable.

    Polling was all over the place in 2015 and 2016, and Leave only decisively moved into the lead in the last 4-5 weeks: I'm very sceptical that the Remain side has learnt any lessons from their defeat in that.
  • Scott_P said:
    That is so stupid and arrogant. They need their salaries taking down to Carrie Gracie's now
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    Sean_F said:

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    During the campaign, Com Res gave gigantic leads for Remain. Even their final poll had Remain ahead 54/46.
    You have your facts, and we have ours.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.
    This is the long range graph of UK support for joining the Euro. Even if you load the dice on the second referendum question, it would still be winnable for Remain.

    image
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382

    New ComRes poll in Mirror.
    55% Remain, 45% Leave.
    43% want a second referendum, but 51% do not.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/5-things-weve-learned-mirrors-11837123

    64% of Labour voters want a second referendum. What’s Corbyn going to do?

    Politically, the next Labour Government will probably be obliged to unpick at least some of Theresa's Brexit settlement, or sign-up to additional EU programmes.

    One thing they could try to do, post GE2022, is to scrap the DfIT and any nascent trade deals under negotiation, and go straight back into the Customs Union.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,016

    Scott_P said:
    That is so stupid and arrogant. They need their salaries taking down to Carrie Gracie's now
    Time for maximum salaries at the BBC.

    And no employment of people who use tax havens.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.

    Leave could mean WTO/no deal, plain CETA, CETA+, EEA minus, or (as is likely) Theresa's Florence deal with some compromises with the EU.

    I suspect present polling is testing the temperature of negotiations that are "mid-way" and, given the trend, influenced by opinion on Theresa May and her Government post the GE2017 disaster as well.

    What's on offer in any new vote would be so crucial to the campaign, and how public opinion would develop once they started engaging with the issue again, that current polling simply isn't reliable.

    Polling was all over the place in 2015 and 2016, and Leave only decisively moved into the lead in the last 4-5 weeks: I'm very sceptical that the Remain side has learnt any lessons from their defeat in that.
    Plus I doubt the EU would want us back unless it was at least 60%+ Remain otherwise we would be blocking everything again exactly as we did before
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    stevef said:

    Back in the 16th century England had its first Brexit -Henry V111's Break with Rome and Catholic Europe because he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn: Hexit. The betting markets believed that Hexit would never happen, that Henry would be overthrown. But they got it wrong. By 1534 England's Hexit was complete, and Anne Boleyn was queen.

    The betting markets were taken completely by surprise in 1536 when Anne Boleyn, the cause of Hexit was suddenly executed.

    Princess Mary and the Remoaners wanted to reverse Hexit, but the betting markets believed that she would never rule England. After all, no woman had ever ruled England. But they got it wrong again. in 1553 Mary not only became queen, but she also reversed Hexit, returning England to Rome and to European Catholic control burning anyone who believed in Hexit.

    The betting markets now announced that Hexit had been defeated and that England would stay in Catholic Europe. Surely they would get it right this time round?

    well, no. Because Mary died, Elizabeth became Queen and Hexit happened all over again -permanently.

    The betting markets are nearly always wrong -nothing changes.

    And, despite a protestant-catholic fissure rumbling on for decades thereafter, in fact almost 200 years, it did England no harm in its long-term success.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    The new ComRes poll suggests the BMG poll with Remain 10% ahead in December was not an outlier.

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/16/new-brexit-poll-shows-people-back-remain-leave-10-points-7165717/

    Yougov had Leave 9% ahead in December
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.

    Leave could mean WTO/no deal, plain CETA, CETA+, EEA minus, or (as is likely) Theresa's Florence deal with some compromises with the EU.

    I suspect present polling is testing the temperature of negotiations that are "mid-way" and, given the trend, influenced by opinion on Theresa May and her Government post the GE2017 disaster as well.

    What's on offer in any new vote would be so crucial to the campaign, and how public opinion would develop once they started engaging with the issue again, that current polling simply isn't reliable.

    Polling was all over the place in 2015 and 2016, and Leave only decisively moved into the lead in the last 4-5 weeks: I'm very sceptical that the Remain side has learnt any lessons from their defeat in that.
    Plus I doubt the EU would want us back unless it was at least 60%+ Remain otherwise we would be blocking everything again exactly as we did before
    The Ultra-Remainers believing full-fat membership is now an option are just as unrealistic as the tungsten-tipped ultra-Brexiters who believe once that's done, it's done forever.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,400
    edited January 11

    stevef said:

    Back in the 16th century England had its first Brexit -Henry V111's Break with Rome and Catholic Europe because he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn: Hexit. The betting markets believed that Hexit would never happen, that Henry would be overthrown. But they got it wrong. By 1534 England's Hexit was complete, and Anne Boleyn was queen.

    The betting markets were taken completely by surprise in 1536 when Anne Boleyn, the cause of Hexit was suddenly executed.

    Princess Mary and the Remoaners wanted to reverse Hexit, but the betting markets believed that she would never rule England. After all, no woman had ever ruled England. But they got it wrong again. in 1553 Mary not only became queen, but she also reversed Hexit, returning England to Rome and to European Catholic control burning anyone who believed in Hexit.

    The betting markets now announced that Hexit had been defeated and that England would stay in Catholic Europe. Surely they would get it right this time round?

    well, no. Because Mary died, Elizabeth became Queen and Hexit happened all over again -permanently.

    The betting markets are nearly always wrong -nothing changes.

    And, despite a protestant-catholic fissure rumbling on for decades thereafter, in fact almost 200 years, it did England no harm in its long-term success.
    You don't know that.

    If it hadn't been for Henry VIII and the split with Rome, we might that be twice as rich as Switzerland.

    Edit to add: I'm not saying we would or wouldn't be richer than Switzerland. Only that alternatives are all counter factuals, and who knows.
  • marke09marke09 Posts: 827

    Karl Pritchard
    @KarlPritch86
    5h5 hours ago

    Will Jeremy Corbyn become the first Englishman to score a 100 this year he is currently on 97 just 3 away from the magic number. Yes 97 front bench resignations people that is absolutely astonishing.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088
    HYUFD said:

    The new ComRes poll suggests the BMG poll with Remain 10% ahead in December was not an outlier.

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/16/new-brexit-poll-shows-people-back-remain-leave-10-points-7165717/

    Yougov had Leave 9% ahead in December
    That wasn't a second referendum question. It was 'prefer to stay or prefer to leave' question that came after a question about Schulz's USE plan so isn't comparable.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,016
    Some people really need to go to jail for this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42650193
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.
    This is the long range graph of UK support for joining the Euro. Even if you load the dice on the second referendum question, it would still be winnable for Remain.

    image
    Let me guess: if we take the steepest part of the last bit of the line over the last 2 data points, and continue extrapolating for a further 4 data points, then it shows 50%+ support for the Euro before 2020. Inevitable. Destiny. Solution to all our problems. Embrace it etc.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.

    Leave could mean WTO/no deal, plain CETA, CETA+, EEA minus, or (as is likely) Theresa's Florence deal with some compromises with the EU.

    I suspect present polling is testing the temperature of negotiations that are "mid-way" and, given the trend, influenced by opinion on Theresa May and her Government post the GE2017 disaster as well.

    What's on offer in any new vote would be so crucial to the campaign, and how public opinion would develop once they started engaging with the issue again, that current polling simply isn't reliable.

    Polling was all over the place in 2015 and 2016, and Leave only decisively moved into the lead in the last 4-5 weeks: I'm very sceptical that the Remain side has learnt any lessons from their defeat in that.
    Plus I doubt the EU would want us back unless it was at least 60%+ Remain otherwise we would be blocking everything again exactly as we did before
    The Ultra-Remainers believing full-fat membership is now an option are just as unrealistic as the tungsten-tipped ultra-Brexiters who believe once that's done, it's done forever.
    A good portion of the opposition to full-fat membership was based on the logic that if we join the Euro, it would make our membership permanent. If we've already tried Brexit and it's failed, it removes that objection and arguably also destroys the logic for being semi-detached.

    People like Boris Johnson who hanker for grand projects will understand that it can only be done by embracing our role within the EU.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641

    stevef said:

    Back in the 16th century England had its first Brexit -Henry V111's Break with Rome and Catholic Europe because he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn: Hexit. The betting markets believed that Hexit would never happen, that Henry would be overthrown. But they got it wrong. By 1534 England's Hexit was complete, and Anne Boleyn was queen.

    The betting markets were taken completely by surprise in 1536 when Anne Boleyn, the cause of Hexit was suddenly executed.

    Princess Mary and the Remoaners wanted to reverse Hexit, but the betting markets believed that she would never rule England. After all, no woman had ever ruled England. But they got it wrong again. in 1553 Mary not only became queen, but she also reversed Hexit, returning England to Rome and to European Catholic control burning anyone who believed in Hexit.

    The betting markets now announced that Hexit had been defeated and that England would stay in Catholic Europe. Surely they would get it right this time round?

    well, no. Because Mary died, Elizabeth became Queen and Hexit happened all over again -permanently.

    The betting markets are nearly always wrong -nothing changes.

    And, despite a protestant-catholic fissure rumbling on for decades thereafter, in fact almost 200 years, it did England no harm in its long-term success.
    Except it was hardly Hexit (and for that matter neither was it the first divide from Rome, Pelaginism, Lollardism, Wycliffe and Tyndale all came before).

    Henry VIII's daughter, Mary Tudor, turned Britain back into a Catholic country and Phillip of Spain became King.

    Britain was also heavily involved in continental Europe in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, importing both Dutch and Germans as head of State.

    Neither Hexit nor Brexit were the beginning or the end of Britains Hokey-Cokey with Europe. We will be heavily involved again fairrly shortly.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    rcs1000 said:

    stevef said:

    Back in the 16th century England had its first Brexit -Henry V111's Break with Rome and Catholic Europe because he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn: Hexit. The betting markets believed that Hexit would never happen, that Henry would be overthrown. But they got it wrong. By 1534 England's Hexit was complete, and Anne Boleyn was queen.

    The betting markets were taken completely by surprise in 1536 when Anne Boleyn, the cause of Hexit was suddenly executed.

    Princess Mary and the Remoaners wanted to reverse Hexit, but the betting markets believed that she would never rule England. After all, no woman had ever ruled England. But they got it wrong again. in 1553 Mary not only became queen, but she also reversed Hexit, returning England to Rome and to European Catholic control burning anyone who believed in Hexit.

    The betting markets now announced that Hexit had been defeated and that England would stay in Catholic Europe. Surely they would get it right this time round?

    well, no. Because Mary died, Elizabeth became Queen and Hexit happened all over again -permanently.

    The betting markets are nearly always wrong -nothing changes.

    And, despite a protestant-catholic fissure rumbling on for decades thereafter, in fact almost 200 years, it did England no harm in its long-term success.
    You don't know that.

    If it hadn't been for Henry VIII and the split with Rome, we might that be twice as rich as Switzerland.

    Edit to add: I'm not saying we would or wouldn't be richer than Switzerland. Only that alternatives are all counter factuals, and who knows.
    Well, we can't know anything for certain, but the UK certainly developed a more global and political outlook, away from the religious tangles of continental Europe, built the largest Empire in history, spread its language far and wide, and decisively shaped the world we live in today.

    Not bad. And hard to beat with a Switzerland plus.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.

    Leave could mean WTO/no deal, plain CETA, CETA+, EEA minus, or (as is likely) Theresa's Florence deal with some compromises with the EU.

    I suspect present polling is testing the temperature of negotiations that are "mid-way" and, given the trend, influenced by opinion on Theresa May and her Government post the GE2017 disaster as well.

    What's on offer in any new vote would be so crucial to the campaign, and how public opinion would develop once they started engaging with the issue again, that current polling simply isn't reliable.

    Polling was all over the place in 2015 and 2016, and Leave only decisively moved into the lead in the last 4-5 weeks: I'm very sceptical that the Remain side has learnt any lessons from their defeat in that.
    Plus I doubt the EU would want us back unless it was at least 60%+ Remain otherwise we would be blocking everything again exactly as we did before
    The Ultra-Remainers believing full-fat membership is now an option are just as unrealistic as the tungsten-tipped ultra-Brexiters who believe once that's done, it's done forever.
    A good portion of the opposition to full-fat membership was based on the logic that if we join the Euro, it would make our membership permanent. If we've already tried Brexit and it's failed, it removes that objection and arguably also destroys the logic for being semi-detached.

    People like Boris Johnson who hanker for grand projects will understand that it can only be done by embracing our role within the EU.
    Your arguments are based on what you want to be true, and not what is.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.

    Leave could mean WTO/no deal, plain CETA, CETA+, EEA minus, or (as is likely) Theresa's Florence deal with some compromises with the EU.

    I suspect present polling is testing the temperature of negotiations that are "mid-way" and, given the trend, influenced by opinion on Theresa May and her Government post the GE2017 disaster as well.

    What's on offer in any new vote would be so crucial to the campaign, and how public opinion would develop once they started engaging with the issue again, that current polling simply isn't reliable.

    Polling was all over the place in 2015 and 2016, and Leave only decisively moved into the lead in the last 4-5 weeks: I'm very sceptical that the Remain side has learnt any lessons from their defeat in that.
    Plus I doubt the EU would want us back unless it was at least 60%+ Remain otherwise we would be blocking everything again exactly as we did before
    The Ultra-Remainers believing full-fat membership is now an option are just as unrealistic as the tungsten-tipped ultra-Brexiters who believe once that's done, it's done forever.
    A good portion of the opposition to full-fat membership was based on the logic that if we join the Euro, it would make our membership permanent. If we've already tried Brexit and it's failed, it removes that objection and arguably also destroys the logic for being semi-detached.

    People like Boris Johnson who hanker for grand projects will understand that it can only be done by embracing our role within the EU.
    About 70% oppose the Euro, around 20% more than voted Leave, if the Euro is ever on the cards you can firmly slam the door to the EU shut
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,114

    stevef said:

    Back in the 16th century England had its first Brexit -Henry V111's Break with Rome and Catholic Europe because he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn: Hexit. The betting markets believed that Hexit would never happen, that Henry would be overthrown. But they got it wrong. By 1534 England's Hexit was complete, and Anne Boleyn was queen.

    The betting markets were taken completely by surprise in 1536 when Anne Boleyn, the cause of Hexit was suddenly executed.

    Princess Mary and the Remoaners wanted to reverse Hexit, but the betting markets believed that she would never rule England. After all, no woman had ever ruled England. But they got it wrong again. in 1553 Mary not only became queen, but she also reversed Hexit, returning England to Rome and to European Catholic control burning anyone who believed in Hexit.

    The betting markets now announced that Hexit had been defeated and that England would stay in Catholic Europe. Surely they would get it right this time round?

    well, no. Because Mary died, Elizabeth became Queen and Hexit happened all over again -permanently.

    The betting markets are nearly always wrong -nothing changes.

    And, despite a protestant-catholic fissure rumbling on for decades thereafter, in fact almost 200 years, it did England no harm in its long-term success.
    More of a Protestant/CofE fissure one would have thought.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    Back in the 16th century England had its first Brexit -Henry V111's Break with Rome and Catholic Europe because he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn: Hexit. The betting markets believed that Hexit would never happen, that Henry would be overthrown. But they got it wrong. By 1534 England's Hexit was complete, and Anne Boleyn was queen.

    The betting markets were taken completely by surprise in 1536 when Anne Boleyn, the cause of Hexit was suddenly executed.

    Princess Mary and the Remoaners wanted to reverse Hexit, but the betting markets believed that she would never rule England. After all, no woman had ever ruled England. But they got it wrong again. in 1553 Mary not only became queen, but she also reversed Hexit, returning England to Rome and to European Catholic control burning anyone who believed in Hexit.

    The betting markets now announced that Hexit had been defeated and that England would stay in Catholic Europe. Surely they would get it right this time round?

    well, no. Because Mary died, Elizabeth became Queen and Hexit happened all over again -permanently.

    The betting markets are nearly always wrong -nothing changes.

    And, despite a protestant-catholic fissure rumbling on for decades thereafter, in fact almost 200 years, it did England no harm in its long-term success.
    Except it was hardly Hexit (and for that matter neither was it the first divide from Rome, Pelaginism, Lollardism, Wycliffe and Tyndale all came before).

    Henry VIII's daughter, Mary Tudor, turned Britain back into a Catholic country and Phillip of Spain became King.

    Britain was also heavily involved in continental Europe in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, importing both Dutch and Germans as head of State.

    Neither Hexit nor Brexit were the beginning or the end of Britains Hokey-Cokey with Europe. We will be heavily involved again fairrly shortly.
    The split with Rome was seismic and turned most of continental Europe, including its most powerful players, against England for decades after.

    I can broadly agree with your last two sentences.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.

    Leave could mean WTO/no deal, plain CETA, CETA+, EEA minus, or (as is likely) Theresa's Florence deal with some compromises with the EU.

    I suspect present polling is testing the temperature of negotiations that are "mid-way" and, given the trend, influenced by opinion on Theresa May and her Government post the GE2017 disaster as well.

    What's on offer in any new vote would be so crucial to the campaign, and how public opinion would develop once they started engaging with the issue again, that current polling simply isn't reliable.

    Polling was all over the place in 2015 and 2016, and Leave only decisively moved into the lead in the last 4-5 weeks: I'm very sceptical that the Remain side has learnt any lessons from their defeat in that.
    Plus I doubt the EU would want us back unless it was at least 60%+ Remain otherwise we would be blocking everything again exactly as we did before
    The Ultra-Remainers believing full-fat membership is now an option are just as unrealistic as the tungsten-tipped ultra-Brexiters who believe once that's done, it's done forever.
    A good portion of the opposition to full-fat membership was based on the logic that if we join the Euro, it would make our membership permanent. If we've already tried Brexit and it's failed, it removes that objection and arguably also destroys the logic for being semi-detached.

    People like Boris Johnson who hanker for grand projects will understand that it can only be done by embracing our role within the EU.
    But, it seems that Brexit won't fail. Our economy is shifting towards exports and production, away from being the EU's consumer of last resort.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    Scott_P said:
    Expect a few well timed quips about 'Mrs Bone' from the opposition then
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,749

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.
    This is the long range graph of UK support for joining the Euro. Even if you load the dice on the second referendum question, it would still be winnable for Remain.

    image
    The graph is a magnificent achievement in data creativity.

    You have been awarded Hon Membership of the Lib Dems with special responsibilities for bar charts.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Comres' final EU referendum poll had Remain 8% ahead and Leave won by 4%, it was one of the most inaccurate final pollsters. So given the same error even on this new poll Leave would still win by 2%.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-poll-final-brexit-comres-yougov-opinium-tns-survey-remain-leave-live-result-a7096316.html

    Given how several pollsters got it wrong last time, and the margin of error, I'm surprised they aren't testing polling for alternate Leave/Remain scenarios, rather than "if you had your June 2016 time again now".

    Remain could mean Dave's deal, status quo, status quo but losing UK budget rebate, or a "better" Remain deal with some free movement controls, or full-fat euro membership/schengen with zero opt-outs.

    Leave could mean WTO/no deal, plain CETA, CETA+, EEA minus, or (as is likely) Theresa's Florence deal with some compromises with the EU.

    I suspect present polling is testing the temperature of negotiations that are "mid-way" and, given the trend, influenced by opinion on Theresa May and her Government post the GE2017 disaster as well.

    What's on offer in any new vote would be so crucial to the campaign, and how public opinion would develop once they started engaging with the issue again, that current polling simply isn't reliable.

    Polling was all over the place in 2015 and 2016, and Leave only decisively moved into the lead in the last 4-5 weeks: I'm very sceptical that the Remain side has learnt any lessons from their defeat in that.
    Plus I doubt the EU would want us back unless it was at least 60%+ Remain otherwise we would be blocking everything again exactly as we did before
    The Ultra-Remainers believing full-fat membership is now an option are just as unrealistic as the tungsten-tipped ultra-Brexiters who believe once that's done, it's done forever.
    Too true
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,309
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/951584520360353793

    Says they have been separated for two years. I guess only a story because of his constant mentions of her indoors.
This discussion has been closed.