Irrespective of whether the Democrats snatch the House seat today, I think people this side of the ocean underestimate the level of mobilisation against the Trump presidency amongst Democrats and, critically, independents. Motivation is very high indeed. On the other hand a slice of the GOP voter base is pretty dispirited. The GOP cannot just rely on its traditional core but a core that has some of its own less motivated to vote.
Despite the stock standard assessment that the mid terms are tough for Democrats there is every chance of a large overperformance.
Trump has a 42% approval rating with likely/registered voters according to 538. Do you think that's a good or bad rating for Trump at this stage?
We shall find out within a few hours how motivated the Democrats are.
Lamb needs a 14% swing from 2012 (last time the seat was contested), across the CD. I'm going to try and work out how much of a swing he is getting, if I can...
Someone called it right downthread, it was inflation - caused by the fall in the pound - reducing our real wages.
Reducing consumption maybe necessary, but that doesn’t mean we should sign up to years more of wage stagnation. Or it didn’t, before Brexit.
The UK had the highest balance of payments deficit on record in 2016 and the highest balance of payments deficit in the western world.
And you think that sterling needed to have a higher value ?
Now lets consider what would have happened if sterling had a higher value - the trade deficit wouldn't have fallen, manufacturing output would be lower, the tourism deficit would be higher as the UK lived even further beyond its means that it has been doing.
Do you think this country can continually consume more wealth that it produces ?
Please answer that - its the issue supporters of Osbrowne economics have been ignoring for over a decade.
You are now changing the subject, onto your Osbrowne economics hobbyhorse.
I agree that Osbrownianism was unsustainable, if you mean an economy built on debt-fuelled consumption, inflated house prices, etc. The hard but sustainable way to address that is to deflate the bubble and incentivise increase in savings.
But I’m talking about Brexit, which as we see has - via inflation - had a real effect on our spending power. We now have less (relatively) money to allocate to anything - whether spending OR saving.
PS Please expand on this “tourism deficit”. It sounds awkwardly as if we must all spend our summers in Skegness.
The tourism deficit is simply the excess of spending by UK visitors abroad to the spending in the UK by foreign visitors:
Tourism deficit: we will *always* have a tourism deficit. People generally want to holiday in warmer climes.
Savings: As @rcs1000 often points out, this in inversely related to imports.
Brexit: completely irrelevant to the points you are making, except it reduces our export opportunities, has increased inflation because of weak sterling, and reduced FDI. None of which is going to help get out of “Osbrownism”, it just makes everyone poorer and everything harder.
The only economic case for Brexit I give credence to is that restrictions on FOM might force businesses to be more productive rather than rely on cheap labour. But I haven’t seen anyone make this case persuasively, it is only an interesting line of enquiry.
I'm not the biggest fan of Matt but that is very good.
In the undemocratic republic of Smithsonia, I was under the impression that admitting to not being a fan of Matt was in the same level of offence to the great leaders son as questioning the quality of Radiohead's entire back catalogue...And could result in 30 days on the naughty step.
You are now changing the subject, onto your Osbrowne economics hobbyhorse.
I agree that Osbrownianism was unsustainable, if you mean an economy built on debt-fuelled consumption, inflated house prices, etc. The hard but sustainable way to address that is to deflate the bubble and incentivise increase in savings.
But I’m talking about Brexit, which as we see has - via inflation - had a real effect on our spending power. We now have less (relatively) money to allocate to anything - whether spending OR saving.
PS Please expand on this “tourism deficit”. It sounds awkwardly as if we must all spend our summers in Skegness.
The tourism deficit is simply the excess of spending by UK visitors abroad to the spending in the UK by foreign visitors:
Tourism deficit: we will *always* have a tourism deficit. People generally want to holiday in warmer climes.
Savings: As @rcs1000 often points out, this in inversely related to imports.
Brexit: completely irrelevant to the points you are making, except it reduces our export opportunities, has increased inflation because of weak sterling, and reduced FDI. None of which is going to help get out of “Osbrownism”, it just makes everyone poorer and everything harder.
The only economic case for Brexit I give credence to is that restrictions on FOM might force businesses to be more productive rather than rely on cheap labour. But I haven’t seen anyone make this case persuasively, it is only an interesting line of enquiry.
So you're happy to have a permanent tourism deficit and want cheaper imports at the cost of more expensive exports.
And who among the Remain leadership, or political establishment as a whole, has advocated reducing consumption by increasing savings ?
We know that's not going to happen because politicians want more wealth consumption becuase that leads to more votes and more 'growth'. And if that means stealing the wealth of the future that's a price they willing pay.
The only way the UK economy can be rebalanced is against its will and that's through a lower ie more competitive value for sterling.
And if that means 5p extra on fishfingers and marginally less imported tat being bought then that's a price we will have to pay.
You are now changing the subject, onto your Osbrowne economics hobbyhorse.
I agree that Osbrownianism was unsustainable, if you mean an economy built on debt-fuelled consumption, inflated house prices, etc. The hard but sustainable way to address that is to deflate the bubble and incentivise increase in savings.
But I’m talking about Brexit, which as we see has - via inflation - had a real effect on our spending power. We now have less (relatively) money to allocate to anything - whether spending OR saving.
PS Please expand on this “tourism deficit”. It sounds awkwardly as if we must all spend our summers in Skegness.
The tourism deficit is simply the excess of spending by UK visitors abroad to the spending in the UK by foreign visitors:
Tourism deficit: we will *always* have a tourism deficit. People generally want to holiday in warmer climes.
Savings: As @rcs1000 often points out, this in inversely related to imports.
Brexit: completely irrelevant to the points you are making, except it reduces our export opportunities, has increased inflation because of weak sterling, and reduced FDI. None of which is going to help get out of “Osbrownism”, it just makes everyone poorer and everything harder.
The only economic case for Brexit I give credence to is that restrictions on FOM might force businesses to be more productive rather than rely on cheap labour. But I haven’t seen anyone make this case persuasively, it is only an interesting line of enquiry.
So you're happy to have a permanent tourism deficit and want cheaper imports at the cost of more expensive exports.
And who among the Remain leadership, or political establishment as a whole, has advocated reducing consumption by increasing savings ?
We know that's not going to happen because politicians want more wealth consumption becuase that leads to more votes and more 'growth'. And if that means stealing the wealth of the future that's a price they willing pay.
The only way the UK economy can be rebalanced is against its will and that's through a lower ie more competitive value for sterling.
And if that means 5p extra on fishfingers and marginally less imported tat being bought then that's a price we will have to pay.
You keep trying to make Brexit about “Osbrownism”. You really are a tiresome troll. Goodnight.
The only way the UK economy can be rebalanced is against its will and that's through a lower ie more competitive value for sterling.
If it was that easy the British economy would be in great shape after the numerous devaluations experienced over the last many decades.
In this wider context Brexit is neither here nor there. Whether we are in the EU or not there's a huge amount of work to be done to avoid further Sterling devaluations in the 2020s, 30s and onward to some final reckoning.
Tourism deficit: we will *always* have a tourism deficit. People generally want to holiday in warmer climes.
Savings: As @rcs1000 often points out, this in inversely related to imports.
Brexit: completely irrelevant to the points you are making, except it reduces our export opportunities, has increased inflation because of weak sterling, and reduced FDI. None of which is going to help get out of “Osbrownism”, it just makes everyone poorer and everything harder.
The only economic case for Brexit I give credence to is that restrictions on FOM might force businesses to be more productive rather than rely on cheap labour. But I haven’t seen anyone make this case persuasively, it is only an interesting line of enquiry.
So you're happy to have a permanent tourism deficit and want cheaper imports at the cost of more expensive exports.
And who among the Remain leadership, or political establishment as a whole, has advocated reducing consumption by increasing savings ?
We know that's not going to happen because politicians want more wealth consumption becuase that leads to more votes and more 'growth'. And if that means stealing the wealth of the future that's a price they willing pay.
The only way the UK economy can be rebalanced is against its will and that's through a lower ie more competitive value for sterling.
And if that means 5p extra on fishfingers and marginally less imported tat being bought then that's a price we will have to pay.
You keep trying to make Brexit about “Osbrownism”. You really are a tiresome troll. Goodnight.
So its insults because you don't want to deal with the reality.
Brexit isn't about Osbrownism but Remaining would have been.
George Osborne would have continued as Chancellor and the economic strategy would have continued to be more borrowed money funding more spending on more imports and behind that higher house prices.
If you doubt that then give a list of the politicians who advocate reducing consumption by increasing savings.
I have about three quarters of all reporting precincts set up to compare against 2012.Maggi's loss then, by the way, was enough to ensure that he lost 95% of all precincts.
The only way the UK economy can be rebalanced is against its will and that's through a lower ie more competitive value for sterling.
If it was that easy the British economy would be in great shape after the numerous devaluations experienced over the last many decades.
In this wider context Brexit is neither here nor there. Whether we are in the EU or not there's a huge amount of work to be done to avoid further Sterling devaluations in the 2020s, 30s and onward to some final reckoning.
The pattern goes:
(1) The UK lives beyond its means (2) Sterling falls in value after political crisis (3) The UK's exports are boosted at the expense of consumption (4) Politicians encourage extra consumption to get votes (5) Return to (1)
The UK needs to live within its means and increase consumption only when increased exports and productivity allows.
I see little likelihood of that happening by choice.
I have about three quarters of all reporting precincts set up to compare against 2012.Maggi's loss then, by the way, was enough to ensure that he lost 95% of all precincts.
I have about three quarters of all reporting precincts set up to compare against 2012.Maggi's loss then, by the way, was enough to ensure that he lost 95% of all precincts.
When are the results expected ?
First results twenty minutes (some precincts have ~30 electors)... beyond that... could be a long one
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Plenty of people from the periphery of the former Soviet Union do. Moscow is full of immigrants in that sense.
In general terms though, people are attracted to regimes where you don't live in constant fear of the state.
Surely it is that they are repelled by regimes where you do live in constant fear of the state? Which may sound like a distinction without a difference but I think does leave people who don't have that experience less deeply rooted in democracy than is realised.
I'm honestly not sure. I get the idea that many people in China are pretty relaxed about being in constant fear of the state.
The Chinese State is pretty nasty, but that's a big improvement from being utterly genocidal,under Mao. So, people are fairly content.
The only way the UK economy can be rebalanced is against its will and that's through a lower ie more competitive value for sterling.
If it was that easy the British economy would be in great shape after the numerous devaluations experienced over the last many decades.
In this wider context Brexit is neither here nor there. Whether we are in the EU or not there's a huge amount of work to be done to avoid further Sterling devaluations in the 2020s, 30s and onward to some final reckoning.
The pattern goes:
(1) The UK lives beyond its means (2) Sterling falls in value after political crisis (3) The UK's exports are boosted at the expense of consumption (4) Politicians encourage extra consumption to get votes (5) Return to (1)
The UK needs to live within its means and increase consumption only when increased exports and productivity allows.
I see little likelihood of that happening by choice.
Yes. The Brexit devaluation is little different in that respect. There's no fundamental change in political strategy. The political imperative to demonstrate that Brexit is a success looks likely to encourage more of the same.
When it finally catches up with the country it will not end well.
The only way the UK economy can be rebalanced is against its will and that's through a lower ie more competitive value for sterling.
If it was that easy the British economy would be in great shape after the numerous devaluations experienced over the last many decades.
In this wider context Brexit is neither here nor there. Whether we are in the EU or not there's a huge amount of work to be done to avoid further Sterling devaluations in the 2020s, 30s and onward to some final reckoning.
The pattern goes:
(1) The UK lives beyond its means (2) Sterling falls in value after political crisis (3) The UK's exports are boosted at the expense of consumption (4) Politicians encourage extra consumption to get votes (5) Return to (1)
The UK needs to live within its means and increase consumption only when increased exports and productivity allows.
I see little likelihood of that happening by choice.
However, voters do not, in the main, reward politicians who deliver good government.
The only way the UK economy can be rebalanced is against its will and that's through a lower ie more competitive value for sterling.
If it was that easy the British economy would be in great shape after the numerous devaluations experienced over the last many decades.
In this wider context Brexit is neither here nor there. Whether we are in the EU or not there's a huge amount of work to be done to avoid further Sterling devaluations in the 2020s, 30s and onward to some final reckoning.
The pattern goes:
(1) The UK lives beyond its means (2) Sterling falls in value after political crisis (3) The UK's exports are boosted at the expense of consumption (4) Politicians encourage extra consumption to get votes (5) Return to (1)
The UK needs to live within its means and increase consumption only when increased exports and productivity allows.
I see little likelihood of that happening by choice.
However, voters do not, in the main, reward politicians who deliver good government.
The experiment has not been attempted. A bit premature to declare it a failure.
Aaand as I type that Betfair's market collapses. Minimal liquidity but now Lamb at barely 1.33. Seems unjustified on the initial results, but time will tell.
Aaand as I type that Betfair's market collapses. Minimal liquidity but now Lamb at barely 1.33. Seems unjustified on the initial results, but time will tell.
Aaand as I type that Betfair's market collapses. Minimal liquidity but now Lamb at barely 1.33. Seems unjustified on the initial results, but time will tell.
I just took a few quid on Saccone at 3.
Allegheny (biggest of four counties) looks very good for Lamb. Swings of ~20% v 2012, against 14% needed. Less good elsewhere.
Aaand as I type that Betfair's market collapses. Minimal liquidity but now Lamb at barely 1.33. Seems unjustified on the initial results, but time will tell.
I just took a few quid on Saccone at 3.
Allegheny (biggest of four counties) looks very good for Lamb. Swings of ~20% v 2012, against 14% needed. Less good elsewhere.
As a man with some money at evens on Lamb I'm happy, but we don't even have a single vote in from 2 of the 4 counties. Betfair is getting ahead of itself. (Not that you are, I should add.)
Aaand as I type that Betfair's market collapses. Minimal liquidity but now Lamb at barely 1.33. Seems unjustified on the initial results, but time will tell.
I just took a few quid on Saccone at 3.
Allegheny (biggest of four counties) looks very good for Lamb. Swings of ~20% v 2012, against 14% needed. Less good elsewhere.
As a man with some money at evens on Lamb I'm happy, but we don't even have a single vote in from 2 of the 4 counties. Betfair is getting ahead of itself. (Not that you are, I should add.)
You can get 5/1 on BF on what the NYT gives as a 47% chance.
'The needle' hasn't cleared 55% for anyone all night, and the estimate final lead hasn't cleared 1%, yet Betfair stubbornly remains with Lamb as an 80%+ favourite.
'The needle' hasn't cleared 55% for anyone all night, and the estimate final lead hasn't cleared 1%, yet Betfair stubbornly remains with Lamb as an 80%+ favourite.
Getting tempted on dipping in against him.
Allegheny is showing a 22% swing. There are big unknowns what Lamb will get elsewhere, but that's what driving BF
Whipped up a quick bare-bones model, looks like a coinflip from results so far. Someone clearly thinks they know something on Betfair.
My read is people getting excited by the exciting outcome and the early returns. Even to the point that 'The Needle' on NYT is being taken as certain. I suspect if it was 53% for Saccone all night so far the odds would be at least evens.
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
Betfair is hedging beautifully. Both candidates below evens.
And Lamb is ahead again by NYT? The difference seems to be a sudden drop in the estimated 'Saccone-ness' of the uncounted vote. Has a key precinct come in?
And Lamb is ahead again by NYT? The difference seems to be a sudden drop in the estimated 'Saccone-ness' of the uncounted vote. Has a key precinct come in?
I think it was the lack of Westmoreland figures... not that we really understand what' happening there. webiste is crap
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
I'm a bit puzzled myself. The "Estimated votes remaining" big dot map shows estinated votes from Westmoreland, *but* we've had no Westmoreland results in yet. How is the uncounted Westmoreland vote estimate calculated?
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
I'm a bit puzzled myself. The "Estimated votes remaining" big dot map shows estinated votes from Westmoreland, *but* we've had no Westmoreland results in yet. How is the uncounted Westmoreland vote estimate calculated?
we do have westmoreland votes, indeed 27% of precincts. just not *by* preisnct.
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
I'm a bit puzzled myself. The "Estimated votes remaining" big dot map shows estinated votes from Westmoreland, *but* we've had no Westmoreland results in yet. How is the uncounted Westmoreland vote estimate calculated?
Luckily I did back myself on this and stick a bit on at 2.8...
And Lamb is ahead again by NYT? The difference seems to be a sudden drop in the estimated 'Saccone-ness' of the uncounted vote. Has a key precinct come in?
I think it was the lack of Westmoreland figures... not that we really understand what' happening there. webiste is crap
Actually Nate Cohn (of the needle) is tweeting: the issue was some Saccone precincts coming in from his current seat (in the state legislature). The needle was treating them as indicative of other republican areas in the county, but Nate Cohn has added an adjustment now to consider them unusually strong for him.
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
I'm a bit puzzled myself. The "Estimated votes remaining" big dot map shows estinated votes from Westmoreland, *but* we've had no Westmoreland results in yet. How is the uncounted Westmoreland vote estimate calculated?
Luckily I did back myself on this and stick a bit on at 2.8...
Indeed, Nate Cohn's tweets in short mean people using their own analysis and not just blindly following the needle had an edge. Well played.
Does each precinct usually have roughly the same number of voters?
I think it varies.
With fewer in rural areas.
I thought so. One reason why the percentage figure isn't always that useful, because it refers to precincts reporting, not the percentage of the total vote.
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
I'm a bit puzzled myself. The "Estimated votes remaining" big dot map shows estinated votes from Westmoreland, *but* we've had no Westmoreland results in yet. How is the uncounted Westmoreland vote estimate calculated?
we do have westmoreland votes, indeed 27% of precincts. just not *by* preisnct.
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
I'm a bit puzzled myself. The "Estimated votes remaining" big dot map shows estinated votes from Westmoreland, *but* we've had no Westmoreland results in yet. How is the uncounted Westmoreland vote estimate calculated?
we do have westmoreland votes, indeed 27% of precincts. just not *by* preisnct.
Ah, thank you.
now 54% of precincts. Saccone only carrying it 54:46, which will be a big disappointment
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
I'm a bit puzzled myself. The "Estimated votes remaining" big dot map shows estinated votes from Westmoreland, *but* we've had no Westmoreland results in yet. How is the uncounted Westmoreland vote estimate calculated?
Luckily I did back myself on this and stick a bit on at 2.8...
Indeed, Nate Cohn's tweets in short mean people using their own analysis and not just blindly following the needle had an edge. Well played.
From past experience, the needle is wildly overconfident early on. I'm not sure how late in it makes sense to take it seriously.
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
I'm a bit puzzled myself. The "Estimated votes remaining" big dot map shows estinated votes from Westmoreland, *but* we've had no Westmoreland results in yet. How is the uncounted Westmoreland vote estimate calculated?
Luckily I did back myself on this and stick a bit on at 2.8...
Indeed, Nate Cohn's tweets in short mean people using their own analysis and not just blindly following the needle had an edge. Well played.
From past experience, the needle is wildly overconfident early on. I'm not sure how late in it makes sense to take it seriously.
Things going pretty red pretty quickly, Sannone now 2.6% ahead and 64% likelihood of winning. Not over yet, but getting there unless some more surprises pop up in unreported areas. Westmorland?
I don't agree with the NYT here.
I'm a bit puzzled myself. The "Estimated votes remaining" big dot map shows estinated votes from Westmoreland, *but* we've had no Westmoreland results in yet. How is the uncounted Westmoreland vote estimate calculated?
Luckily I did back myself on this and stick a bit on at 2.8...
Indeed, Nate Cohn's tweets in short mean people using their own analysis and not just blindly following the needle had an edge. Well played.
From past experience, the needle is wildly overconfident early on. I'm not sure how late in it makes sense to take it seriously.
In fairness, many criticisms of it could be made tonight but not overconfidence. Barring a brief period where it was misinterpreting some precincts it hasn't had anyone over 60% likely.
That's good. Maybe they made some changes after the Alabama senate election.
Everyone on twitter seems to want Lamb to win. I'd prefer Saccone, can't trade it on betfair just had a straight bet earlier with Ladbrokes, looking like a loser right now >+>
Everyone on twitter seems to want Lamb to win. I'd prefer Saccone, can't trade it on betfair just had a straight bet earlier with Ladbrokes, looking like a loser right now >+>
I had a straight bet also on Saccone with Ladbrokes but took advantage of a discontinuity in the NYT model to lay and then bet on Lamb as the model went crazy and so cover my Ladbrokes bet with plenty to spare. So I am relaxed.
Actually I'm very happy if Lamb wins. I first bet on Saccone, partly because I thought it was an evens chance and I got 13-8 (so a value bet) but also as an insurance on my grief if the Republican won (an emotional bet). Now I'm quids in and happy all round. I think I'll go to bed.
Comments
If we get an alternative WC organised we'd have most of the world population.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43388662
If in six weeks its announced at under £40bn they'll have destroyed even more of their credibility.
https://twitter.com/nickmacpherson2/status/973694788175265794
Savings: As @rcs1000 often points out, this in inversely related to imports.
Brexit: completely irrelevant to the points you are making, except it reduces our export opportunities, has increased inflation because of weak sterling, and reduced FDI. None of which is going to help get out of “Osbrownism”, it just makes everyone poorer and everything harder.
The only economic case for Brexit I give credence to is that restrictions on FOM might force businesses to be more productive rather than rely on cheap labour. But I haven’t seen anyone make this case persuasively, it is only an interesting line of enquiry.
And who among the Remain leadership, or political establishment as a whole, has advocated reducing consumption by increasing savings ?
We know that's not going to happen because politicians want more wealth consumption becuase that leads to more votes and more 'growth'. And if that means stealing the wealth of the future that's a price they willing pay.
The only way the UK economy can be rebalanced is against its will and that's through a lower ie more competitive value for sterling.
And if that means 5p extra on fishfingers and marginally less imported tat being bought then that's a price we will have to pay.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/13/school-governors-reject-expulsions-over-mock-slave-auction-bath
In this wider context Brexit is neither here nor there. Whether we are in the EU or not there's a huge amount of work to be done to avoid further Sterling devaluations in the 2020s, 30s and onward to some final reckoning.
Brexit isn't about Osbrownism but Remaining would have been.
George Osborne would have continued as Chancellor and the economic strategy would have continued to be more borrowed money funding more spending on more imports and behind that higher house prices.
If you doubt that then give a list of the politicians who advocate reducing consumption by increasing savings.
edit... This seems particularly egregious however...
I have about three quarters of all reporting precincts set up to compare against 2012.Maggi's loss then, by the way, was enough to ensure that he lost 95% of all precincts.
(1) The UK lives beyond its means
(2) Sterling falls in value after political crisis
(3) The UK's exports are boosted at the expense of consumption
(4) Politicians encourage extra consumption to get votes
(5) Return to (1)
The UK needs to live within its means and increase consumption only when increased exports and productivity allows.
I see little likelihood of that happening by choice.
"I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently....."
What next ?
If Roman Abramavich met a sudden end would he be liable to pay IHT ?
When it finally catches up with the country it will not end well.
Lamb (D) 52%
Saccone (R) 47%
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/13/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-house-special-election.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Looks good for the Democrats so far, goodnight
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/13/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-house-special-election.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Soneone is making a mistake.
Getting tempted on dipping in against him.
I suspect that the result might not be announced tomorrow.
https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=42&cd=18
With fewer in rural areas.
I didn't even get a chance to put some money on Saccone.
Did I get lucky?
if I had it precinct by precinct, i could tell you if that was likely. but I don't so I can't
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18Kq1ngkhxTs02CoSyHongUe-4iOd8_l7QrjDjdbGTFY/edit#
Sacconne is running out of road though...
Here are the reported
LAMB SACCONE MILLER %age
Allegheny 46,005 33,195 412 0.83
Westmoreland 21,195 27,995 333 0.77
Washington 6,062 6,121 106 0.33
Greene 1,927 2,694 42 1
pro-rata-ing them up gives us
LAMB SACCONE MILLER %age
Allegheny 55,428 39,994 496 1
Westmoreland 27,526 36,357 432 1
Washington 18,370 18,548 321 1
Greene 1,927 2,694 42 1
Total 103,250 97,594 1,292
So Lamb wins by about 5K, mutatis mutandis.
Unless he doesn't...
Actually I'm very happy if Lamb wins. I first bet on Saccone, partly because I thought it was an evens chance and I got 13-8 (so a value bet) but also as an insurance on my grief if the Republican won (an emotional bet). Now I'm quids in and happy all round. I think I'll go to bed.
LAMB SACCONE MILLER %age
Allegheny 49,502 35,844 446 0.91
Westmoreland 25,429 34,087 397 0.88
Washington 14,829 16,569 244 0.75
Greene 1,927 2,694 42 1
LAMB SACCONE MILLER %age
Allegheny 54,398 39,389 490 1
Westmoreland 28,897 38,735 451 1
Washington 19,772 22,092 325 1
Greene 1,927 2,694 42 1
Total 104,993 102,910 1,309
Still Lamb, but it's closer: 2K.
Seriously: who needs a needle when you've got me...