If Labour had been in office since 2010, what would be better today - and what would be worse? pic.twitter.com/FuSmhR6I2R
What is it about the NHS as an issue which causes poll respondents to be so irrational?
Looking at the weekend Survation Poll it ended with a penalty shootout between the UK and Germany.
The question was:
Which country, the UK or Germany, would you personally rate as best at each of the following things?
The subject then changed with each penalty taken
Beer
UK 31.1% Germany 48.5% Don't Know 20.4%
Cars
UK 19.6% Germany 67.1% Don't Know 13.3%
Germany even sneaked a win on weather by a single percentage point.
But when it came to Healthcare System this was the result:
UK 60.0 Germany 17.6 Don't Know 22.3
That cannot possibly be a rational or informed view.
It also makes you realise it is not Labour which is strong on the NHS but rather a large majority of the public wanting to idealise its role and protect it from what they perceive to be adverse change.
"The 5% increase in CON share in Ashcroft poll is outside the margin of error."
The real margin of error in polls is much greater than merely the random sampling error. The YouGov margin is, practically speaking, around 5% on Lab lead, for example.
"The 5% increase in CON share in Ashcroft poll is outside the margin of error."
The real margin of error in polls is much greater than merely the random sampling error. The YouGov margin is, practically speaking, around 5% on Lab lead, for example.
Can you go into a touch more detail, ages since I did any statistics.
Mr. L, surely Labour losing socially conservative (as it were) white working class voters to UKIP directly is more likely?
There was a neat map in today's Times, showing where Labour was, and wasn't threatened by UKIP, with an article by Matthew Goodwin. In the Euros and local elections, UKIP did very well in the former coalfields of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, as well as parts of the urban West Midlands. But, UKIP pose no threat to Labour in those urban areas where Labour support is based on students, ethnic minorities, better off public sector workers etc.
UKIP is a threat to "Proper Labour" - it is also where Ed Miliband goes down like a cup of cold sick.
Should I do a survey on Ed Miliband in the local working men's club in my village in Derbyshire ?
"The 5% increase in CON share in Ashcroft poll is outside the margin of error."
The real margin of error in polls is much greater than merely the random sampling error. The YouGov margin is, practically speaking, around 5% on Lab lead, for example.
Can you go into a touch more detail, ages since I did any statistics.
Not an exhaustive list, but:
The margin of error (as one might calculate on say http://www.comres.co.uk/poll-digest/11/margin-of-error-calculator.htm) is the error associated with randomly picking a sample of x out a population of y at a confidence of 95%. Therefore one in 40 polls will further understate the Conservative vote share and another one in 40 will overstate it, and this could just be one of those.
Neither phone or Internet polling picks a truly random selection of people (too many people at home during the day, for example). The firms attempt to take account of this, by adjusting for various strata, but that is testament to the problem, and any adjustment introduces its own issues about accuracy. The effect on the margin of error can be quite complex.
Anyone who misunderstands the question/trolls/random answer. This isn't so obvious in VI, but if you look at the ipsos-MORI poll asking what % of people were unemployed, some responses were so high there must have been some issue.
Any deliberate adjustment (the spiral of silence, etc, vote likliehood % weightings) also deviates from the actual responses. This is an attempt to correct for a different sort of error - namely that respondents do not respond with their actual voting intention. In other words, even the best carried out poll does not achieve its aim, which is how the respondent would vote tomorrow, but rather, how they say they would vote tomorrow.
FPT Despite being a Tory supporter I remain amazed at the faith shown in Lord Ashcroft's polls on this site. Today's poll is good news but reliable? His marginal polls good for Labour but reliable? I don't bet thankfully but if I did these kind of polls would not be my guiding light.
"UKIP did very well in the former coalfields of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, as well as parts of the urban West Midlands. But, UKIP pose no threat to Labour in those urban areas where Labour support is based on students, ethnic minorities, better off public sector workers etc."
FPT this goes to the heart of Labour's problem. In order for labour to shore up its working class vote, it will have to get much tougher on immigration - but its metropolitan vote is driving in the opposite direction.
Ashcroft polling seems incredibly volatile and has given the Tories the lead (on more than one occasion now?). Is the methodology public and if so there anything they are doing which could explain the big swings we seem to see from poll to poll, and the fact it registers "cross-over" when all the over pollsters it looks more like a pretty consistent 3-4% Labour lead (albeit having narrowed over the past 12 months or so).
But when it came to Healthcare System this was the result:
UK 60.0 Germany 17.6 Don't Know 22.3
That cannot possibly be a rational or informed view.
Don't Know should presumably actually be somewhere north of 80%.
But people being polled aren't naive; they know the polling will be used as a proxy to inform debate and justify (or not) policy. So they answer according to that.
You can't go wrong with a robust defence to Johnny Foreigner doing us down. The schoolboy machinations don't really impinge. Exactly like a scene from "Yes, Prime Minister."
Ed's attitude, no matter how Machiavellian, too closely resembles taking your trousers down and bracing yourself.
Mr. L, surely Labour losing socially conservative (as it were) white working class voters to UKIP directly is more likely?
There was a neat map in today's Times, showing where Labour was, and wasn't threatened by UKIP, with an article by Matthew Goodwin. In the Euros and local elections, UKIP did very well in the former coalfields of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, as well as parts of the urban West Midlands. But, UKIP pose no threat to Labour in those urban areas where Labour support is based on students, ethnic minorities, better off public sector workers etc.
This proven hypothesis of where the Kippers are strong should be now be called "Goodwin's Law".
I think Mike is wrong when he says the change is 'outside the margin of error'. If the 'real' Con share, on Lord Ashcroft's methodology, is, say, 30% - i.e. that's the figure he'd get if he used a hugely bigger sample - then we may just be seeing random variations from week to week of two or three percent above or below that figure. I'm pretty sure that, looking at all the polls Lord A has published in this series so far, the results are consistent with nothing much having changed in the last few weeks.
Note that the weighted base in these polls is less than 500.
Four to Forgo Forgetting An unreliable weekly look at four seats that will hopefully be early to declare on GE2015, and will give a good indication as to victory by either side...
Kingswood - Is now a comfortable Conservative HOLD. Unsurprisingly, the same is true for Pendle, Vale of Glamorgan and Harlow.
But when it came to Healthcare System this was the result:
UK 60.0 Germany 17.6 Don't Know 22.3
That cannot possibly be a rational or informed view.
Don't Know should presumably actually be somewhere north of 80%.
But people being polled aren't naive; they know the polling will be used as a proxy to inform debate and justify (or not) policy. So they answer according to that.
Yes, a persuasive answer.
And also, by extension, an explanation for the swingback phenomenon and why subsidiary questions on government confidence are not yet [consistently] being reflected in voting intention results..
Hmm, didn't comment on the rise in Labour's leads in Populus and won't comment on this. More data needed!
FPT: Richard N - thanks for the clear answer: you say we will under Cameron have an in/out referendum in 2017 without waiting for any treaty. Suppose the answer is "in", perhaps because Cameron says good progress is being made and he's optimistic about the outcome. Suppose then that the Treaty is not quite what was expected, or there is no Treaty because someone (Poland, say) vetoes it. Would we then have a second referendum? Or would Cameron say that the matter was settled in 2017?
Hmm, didn't comment on the rise in Labour's leads in Populus and won't comment on this. More data needed!
FPT: Richard N - thanks for the clear answer: you say we will under Cameron have an in/out referendum in 2017 without waiting for any treaty. Suppose the answer is "in", perhaps because Cameron says good progress is being made and he's optimistic about the outcome. Suppose then that the Treaty is not quite what was expected, or there is no Treaty because someone (Poland, say) vetoes it. Would we then have a second referendum? Or would Cameron say that the matter was settled in 2017?
If the vote to stay In was done on the back of promises, there would have to be another referendum if those promises were not fulfilled.
''Ashcroft polling finally catching up with the mood of despair at the top of Labour.....''
They must be seriously bricking it about the northern working class vote. ISIS might be turning attitudes very quickly and very dramatically.
A defence of Islam artcle on CIF gets an absolute shallacking today. Not in the Mail. On CIF. Inconceivable 18 months ago.
A boring Monday lunchtime, so what better to do I thought, than another read of Chapter 11 "An 'end' to Immigration?" of "A Nation or No Nation?", a collection of Enoch Powells speeches
37 years later, and it is almost as though he had a crystal ball
But, the world wont listen
His assessment of human nature, and the effect of mass immigration on both sides of the debate, is unsurpassed to this day. I recommend a read of it to anyone interested in politics
What we need to remember is that we seem to be in a generally volatile polling period at the moment.
Remember Ashcroft wasn't alone in showing Con leads last month - ICM and Populus also did. YouGov had the parties tied a couple of times as well I think?
Certainly something happened in May, but after the Euro's there was clear drift to Labour - Ashcroft seemed to "see" this shift first as well?
So what it could be is that Ashcroft Polls are actually very sensitive to the little shifts and nuances in public option that other pollsters don't pick up on that well?
@NickPalmer - The honest answer is that I don't know! I guess it would depend on the extent of the variance from what was thought to be agreed.
The trouble is that there is a limit to what you can do to allow for the hypothetical. In the scenario you describe, it might not even be Cameron or a Conservative government who was in power when the Poles pulled the plug. It might even be your problem - what would a Labour government do in that scenario?
Edit: In addition, the problem exists in reverse if we decide to leave. What happens if, contrary to the assurances of the BOOers, we find that we can't negotiate an acceptable trade treaty with the EU?
As a further point it seem's that when people are more politically "switched on" and thinking about politics (Euro elections, Juncker bust up) it's bad news for Labour and better for Conservatives.
When people aren't really thinking about politics it's better news for Labour.
Or put another way, come the general election, Lab's stuffed!
Hmm, didn't comment on the rise in Labour's leads in Populus and won't comment on this. More data needed!
FPT: Richard N - thanks for the clear answer: you say we will under Cameron have an in/out referendum in 2017 without waiting for any treaty. Suppose the answer is "in", perhaps because Cameron says good progress is being made and he's optimistic about the outcome. Suppose then that the Treaty is not quite what was expected, or there is no Treaty because someone (Poland, say) vetoes it. Would we then have a second referendum? Or would Cameron say that the matter was settled in 2017?
If the vote to stay In was done on the back of promises, there would have to be another referendum if those promises were not fulfilled.
"Cameron says good progress is being made and he's optimistic about the outcome" will almost certainly be the case in such a scenario. Few would take that as a promise of Treaty change, outside Cameron's power, although I imagine there would still be dissenters in favour of a second referendum.
I commented earlier this week that I didn't that the Coulson story would affect long term voting as the people who are most bothered about this are likely to already be guardian reading labour supporting types. I noted over the weekend that 70% of people thought that it showed poor judgement, but there is poor judgement regarding your media manager, and there is poor judgement with regards to going to war, and in my opinion the second is the big vote shifter.
I think Mike is wrong when he says the change is 'outside the margin of error'. If the 'real' Con share, on Lord Ashcroft's methodology, is, say, 30% - i.e. that's the figure he'd get if he used a hugely bigger sample - then we may just be seeing random variations from week to week of two or three percent above or below that figure. I'm pretty sure that, looking at all the polls Lord A has published in this series so far, the results are consistent with nothing much having changed in the last few weeks.
Note that the weighted base in these polls is less than 500.
I have some of the figures to hand from Ashcroft's last four polls, and various of the internals are all over the place.
For example, the percentage of 2010 Lib Dems now saying that they will vote Labour has been: 14%, 33%, 23%, 15% The unweighted base this week was just 104 2010 Lib Dem voters, so the margin of error on this is +/-10%, and so all of the polls could be consistent with this staying relatively steady at about 1-in-4.
On the other hand, there has been a monotonic decrease in the proportion of 2010 Conservative voters who now say they will vote UKIP: 18%, 18%, 17%, 14% - but as to how many you would need to be sure there was a real underlying change? I don't know, though I suspect more than four.
Lord A's raw numbers in each of his polls btw (Unweighted)
Quite nicely his weighting doesn't change them all that much.
My hunch is that 09/06/2014 poll was an outlier on the low side for the Conservatives, we need more data from future weeks to determine if this is a Labour outlier.
As a further point it seem's that when people are more politically "switched on" and thinking about politics (Euro elections, Juncker bust up) it's bad news for Labour and better for Conservatives.
When people aren't really thinking about politics it's better news for Labour.
Or put another way, come the general election, Lab's stuffed!
It's a theory anyway...
Hence why the YouGov poll post-Juncker showed a 9% Lab lead? Maybe this (and the 9%) are just garden-variety outliers.
Hmm, didn't comment on the rise in Labour's leads in Populus and won't comment on this. More data needed!
FPT: Richard N - thanks for the clear answer: you say we will under Cameron have an in/out referendum in 2017 without waiting for any treaty. Suppose the answer is "in", perhaps because Cameron says good progress is being made and he's optimistic about the outcome. Suppose then that the Treaty is not quite what was expected, or there is no Treaty because someone (Poland, say) vetoes it. Would we then have a second referendum? Or would Cameron say that the matter was settled in 2017?
If the vote to stay In was done on the back of promises, there would have to be another referendum if those promises were not fulfilled.
"Cameron says good progress is being made and he's optimistic about the outcome" will almost certainly be the case in such a scenario. Few would take that as a promise of Treaty change, outside Cameron's power, although I imagine there would still be dissenters in favour of a second referendum.
If the terms of the EU change after the first referendum vote, it would be entirely reasonable for eurosceptics to campaign for another referendum.
As a further point it seem's that when people are more politically "switched on" and thinking about politics (Euro elections, Juncker bust up) it's bad news for Labour and better for Conservatives.
When people aren't really thinking about politics it's better news for Labour.
Or put another way, come the general election, Lab's stuffed!
It's a theory anyway...
Hence why the YouGov poll post-Juncker showed a 9% Lab lead? Maybe this (and the 9%) are just garden-variety outliers.
Re Ashcroft volatility: ... So what it could be is that Ashcroft Polls are actually very sensitive to the little shifts and nuances in public option that other pollsters don't pick up on that well?
Even with a theoretically perfectly random sample, the results of the Ashcroft poll are based on just 459 people who say they will vote and which party they will vote for in a general election. The 95% confidence interval at that sample size is +/-4.6. So, if the true underlying support levels were Conservative 31% - 32% Labour then you would expect to see Conservative scores in the range [26:36] and Labour scores in the range [27:37] entirely by chance - and the 1-in-20 outlier would be outside of those ranges!
Given that, the volatility of the Ashcroft polls is not at all surprising. In isolation they cannot possibly tell you anything about the week-to-week changes in public opinion.
Re Ashcroft volatility: ... So what it could be is that Ashcroft Polls are actually very sensitive to the little shifts and nuances in public option that other pollsters don't pick up on that well?
Even with a theoretically perfectly random sample, the results of the Ashcroft poll are based on just 459 people who say they will vote and which party they will vote for in a general election. The 95% confidence interval at that sample size is +/-4.6. So, if the true underlying support levels were Conservative 31% - 32% Labour then you would expect to see Conservative scores in the range [26:36] and Labour scores in the range [27:37] entirely by chance - and the 1-in-20 outlier would be outside of those ranges!
Given that, the volatility of the Ashcroft polls is not at all surprising. In isolation they cannot possibly tell you anything about the week-to-week changes in public opinion.
The difference between Lab and Con scores will also conform to that distribution [-4:6] - the chance of Con 36, Lab 27 is much lower than 2.5%.
(Subject to my earlier post - as to the "theoretically perfectly random sample" point, for example.)
Re Ashcroft volatility: ... So what it could be is that Ashcroft Polls are actually very sensitive to the little shifts and nuances in public option that other pollsters don't pick up on that well?
Even with a theoretically perfectly random sample, the results of the Ashcroft poll are based on just 459 people who say they will vote and which party they will vote for in a general election. The 95% confidence interval at that sample size is +/-4.6. So, if the true underlying support levels were Conservative 31% - 32% Labour then you would expect to see Conservative scores in the range [26:36] and Labour scores in the range [27:37] entirely by chance - and the 1-in-20 outlier would be outside of those ranges!
Given that, the volatility of the Ashcroft polls is not at all surprising. In isolation they cannot possibly tell you anything about the week-to-week changes in public opinion.
585 Mean sample size for UKIPConLibLab I make it. 4% MoE @ 95% CI.
Whatever eventually happens to ISIS, I believe right now it is shaking people to the core (whether rightly or wrongly).
Three weeks ago few had heard of them, and now they're the biggest threat to civilisation. Really?
I'd never heard of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden on 10/09/01, what does it matter how long people have heard of ISIS?
They have already taken over several cities in one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the intention of making it an Islamic state, it is a big deal
I feel happier with Cameron over his Juncker stance.
When Cameron is really pissed off about something he finds it hard to conceal it. He looked pissed off over Juncker and the EU-elite's general disdain for Britain last week and good on him for making a stand.
He lost, yes, but I prefer a politician to do the right thing and lose than do what GB did over the Lisbon Treaty and sneakily sign up to it off-camera.
The thing about this constant supply of polls is that when one's side takes the lead, the feeling is great and when the other side takes the lead, the poll is unreliable. Not sure how a LibDem feels with any polls these days though judging by OGH's comments, when they break through the 10% barrier a huge feeling of relief descends.
As the Euro elections and council elections both suggested (though on very low turnouts) the two main parties are pretty much nip and tuck and one suspects that local factors may have a disproportionate effect next year.
Surely this is a spoof account.... can anyone spot the flaw?
Danny Blanchflower@D_Blanchflower·Jun 23 Ashcroft poll has labour 5 pt lead which has steadily widened since may which has been a shock to the panicking Tory spin machine Expand Reply
Danny Blanchflower@D_Blanchflower·54 mins @PickardJE i agree with @dpjhodges this one doesn't look credible as so much variation across polls - average in june is labour has 4pt lead
Whatever eventually happens to ISIS, I believe right now it is shaking people to the core (whether rightly or wrongly).
Three weeks ago few had heard of them, and now they're the biggest threat to civilisation. Really?
I'd never heard of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden on 10/09/01, what does it matter how long people have heard of ISIS?
They have already taken over several cities in one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the intention of making it an Islamic state, it is a big deal
Indeed. For a mob that regard Al Qaeda as too moderate and seem to have a number of Brits involved. We should be concerned.
As a further point it seem's that when people are more politically "switched on" and thinking about politics (Euro elections, Juncker bust up) it's bad news for Labour and better for Conservatives.
When people aren't really thinking about politics it's better news for Labour.
Or put another way, come the general election, Lab's stuffed!
It's a theory anyway...
Hence why the YouGov poll post-Juncker showed a 9% Lab lead? Maybe this (and the 9%) are just garden-variety outliers.
The thing about this constant supply of polls is that when one's side takes the lead, the feeling is great and when the other side takes the lead, the poll is unreliable. Not sure how a LibDem feels with any polls these days though judging by OGH's comments, when they break through the 10% barrier a huge feeling of relief descends.
As the Euro elections and council elections both suggested (though on very low turnouts) the two main parties are pretty much nip and tuck and one suspects that local factors may have a disproportionate effect next year.
I contend that no pollster has got a handle on the UKIP effect.. it is ridiculous that a party can have a variance of 10 points when the average is about 16-17
Just one poll but it gives the Conservatives a few hours of hope. If we have a couple of weeks of similar polls then Ed Milliband's position might become untenable. Another hope, probably a forlorn hope? Still it brightened up my day.
Re: Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and Saville. This gives a whole new meaning to "all round family enteretainers". Could the BBC be liable for some form of corporate responsibility?
@NickPalmer - The honest answer is that I don't know! I guess it would depend on the extent of the variance from what was thought to be agreed.
The trouble is that there is a limit to what you can do to allow for the hypothetical. In the scenario you describe, it might not even be Cameron or a Conservative government who was in power when the Poles pulled the plug. It might even be your problem - what would a Labour government do in that scenario?
Edit: In addition, the problem exists in reverse if we decide to leave. What happens if, contrary to the assurances of the BOOers, we find that we can't negotiate an acceptable trade treaty with the EU?
That problem is very unlikely to exist. If we left the EU we would almost certainly remain members of EFTA. As such we would continue to trade as we had done before whilst studying the options for new trade agreements outside of EFTA if we chose to leave.
We do not simply go from 'in' to 'out' in terms of trade.
More to the point the idea that EU manufacturers would accept a loss of such a large slice of their market is fanciful - unlike the almost certainty that one of the 27 countries of the EU will mess up whatever deal Cameron feels he has negotiated as a basis for the referendum.
Scrapheap, Blanchflower is frequently on Twitter talking total shite. He now tries to deny he said unemployment would rise to 5 million under the Tories and he still thinks George Osborne has ruined the wonderful inheritance the Coalition had from Brown's government.
Sustained 3.4% growth would indeed be a boom. However, I note that GS is projecting it to fall back to 3% the following year, and presumably more beyond that. That is because we're still catching up to trend, which is easier, and going beyond that is very difficult.
I think Mike is wrong when he says the change is 'outside the margin of error'. If the 'real' Con share, on Lord Ashcroft's methodology, is, say, 30% - i.e. that's the figure he'd get if he used a hugely bigger sample - then we may just be seeing random variations from week to week of two or three percent above or below that figure. I'm pretty sure that, looking at all the polls Lord A has published in this series so far, the results are consistent with nothing much having changed in the last few weeks.
As a final comment on this for now, I have had a look at the past Ashcroft polls, and these are the series of Conservative poll shares: 34, 29, 29, 25, 28, 29, 28, 33 = mean of 29.4%.
So I agree that these are not inconsistent with a stable level of support for the Conservatives.
Similarly, the Labour shares are: 32, 35, 31, 34, 32, 35, 33, 31 = mean of 32.9%
The Lib Dem mean is 8.3% and the UKIP mean is 16.1%
Putting these into Electoral Calculus [just for fun!] gives a Labour majority of 42.
This shows how much things have changed since 2010.
Had in 2010 the tories got 33, labour 31 with libdem, Labour would have been 29 seats short of a majority, but 34 seats ahead of the Tories and in coalition with the Lib Dems would have had a stable majority of 68.
With the figures in todays poll (33/31/9) Labour are only 18 short of a majority, but are only 16 seats ahead of the tories; and in coalition with the Libdems would have a tiny majority of 8.
One of the reasons the coalition has worked is that it has a majority of 80. This means that the dissenters in both parties could be ignored. Indeed it has probably been easier for Cameron than if he had a small overall majority like Major did in 1992. I would think that the main bulk of the Liberals are rather easier to work with than the "Bastards" were.
Labour have no such luxury on these figures and a coalition with majority of 8 would be a nightmare to whip, especially as difficult financial decisions will be needed to continue to reduce the record deficit.
Whatever eventually happens to ISIS, I believe right now it is shaking people to the core (whether rightly or wrongly).
Three weeks ago few had heard of them, and now they're the biggest threat to civilisation. Really?
I'd never heard of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden on 10/09/01, what does it matter how long people have heard of ISIS?
They have already taken over several cities in one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the intention of making it an Islamic state, it is a big deal
Mr. Isam, I am sure it is a big deal for the poor sods who live in that ghastly part of the world. Mind you its only ghastly because of the attitudes of the people that have been and still are living there. A bunch of nutters telling their compatriots that they must live as if they were still in the 7th century (aside from modern weapons, transport and communication links of course) is not really a big deal down here in darkest Sussex.
Why are there no bees in my garden when two months ago it was full of them? That is matter of real concern to me. A punch -up between one bunch of homicidal nutters who think we should all live in the 7th century and another bunch of homicidal nutters who also think we should live in the 7th century but in a slightly different way? Nah, couldn't give a big rats arse.
ISIS videos feature bastardised Islamic songs of praise over vids of random buildings being blown up. I find them disturbingly amusing.
And I don't think they can be accused of being medieval either. With their penchant for cruxificition they are taking us way back into the first century AD.
That problem is very unlikely to exist. If we left the EU we would almost certainly remain members of EFTA. As such we would continue to trade as we had done before whilst studying the options for new trade agreements outside of EFTA if we chose to leave.
We do not simply go from 'in' to 'out' in terms of trade.
More to the point the idea that EU manufacturers would accept a loss of such a large slice of their market is fanciful - unlike the almost certainty that one of the 27 countries of the EU will mess up whatever deal Cameron feels he has negotiated as a basis for the referendum.
It's posts like that which put me off the Out side. Basically you're doing a Salmond: we'll get everything we want and it doesn't matter a hoot what the other side think. In the real world, it would be a negotiation, in which we would want some very specific things - most notably, access to the Single Market for services. Will we get them all, and have to give nothing in return? No, of course not, and anyone pretending otherwise is simply not being realistic.
That problem is very unlikely to exist. If we left the EU we would almost certainly remain members of EFTA. As such we would continue to trade as we had done before whilst studying the options for new trade agreements outside of EFTA if we chose to leave.
We do not simply go from 'in' to 'out' in terms of trade.
More to the point the idea that EU manufacturers would accept a loss of such a large slice of their market is fanciful - unlike the almost certainty that one of the 27 countries of the EU will mess up whatever deal Cameron feels he has negotiated as a basis for the referendum.
It's posts like that which put me off the Out side. Basically you're doing a Salmond: we'll get everything we want and it doesn't matter a hoot what the other side think. In the real world, it would be a negotiation, in which we would want some very specific things - most notably, access to the Single Market for services. Will we get them all, and have to give nothing in return? No, of course not, and anyone pretending otherwise is simply not being realistic.
Rubbish. You don't need anything to put you off the Out side since you made up your mind long ago and will not countenance anything that might challenge that view.
You ignore the basic point I made that we would still have membership of the single market via EFTA of which we are an original independent signatory quite separate to the EU.
Or are you saying that the EU will pick and choose which members of EFTA they do business with?
That is before we get on to the basic point that our balance of trade deficit is such that the EU simply cannot afford to not trade with us.
But of course don't let simple things like facts get in the way of your blind Europhilia.
Whatever eventually happens to ISIS, I believe right now it is shaking people to the core (whether rightly or wrongly).
Three weeks ago few had heard of them, and now they're the biggest threat to civilisation. Really?
I'd never heard of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden on 10/09/01, what does it matter how long people have heard of ISIS?
They have already taken over several cities in one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the intention of making it an Islamic state, it is a big deal
Mr. Isam, I am sure it is a big deal for the poor sods who live in that ghastly part of the world. Mind you its only ghastly because of the attitudes of the people that have been and still are living there. A bunch of nutters telling their compatriots that they must live as if they were still in the 7th century (aside from modern weapons, transport and communication links of course) is not really a big deal down here in darkest Sussex.
Why are there no bees in my garden when two months ago it was full of them? That is matter of real concern to me. A punch -up between one bunch of homicidal nutters who think we should all live in the 7th century and another bunch of homicidal nutters who also think we should live in the 7th century but in a slightly different way? Nah, couldn't give a big rats arse.
It's very clear what we would get when we are in the EFTA: full access to the single market, as Norway has. The question is what we would get once we leave the EFTA. That is likely to be somewhere between what Korea gets and what Norway gets. For me, that would be well worth it to manage immigration into this country.
The thing about this constant supply of polls is that when one's side takes the lead, the feeling is great and when the other side takes the lead, the poll is unreliable. Not sure how a LibDem feels with any polls these days though judging by OGH's comments, when they break through the 10% barrier a huge feeling of relief descends.
As the Euro elections and council elections both suggested (though on very low turnouts) the two main parties are pretty much nip and tuck and one suspects that local factors may have a disproportionate effect next year.
I think you are right about the polls swinging one way and then the other, and surely in general most people would have the parties neck and neck. What I don't think is currently reflected in the polling is that probably the tory vote will be more efficient as votes are stripped off by UKIP but not necessarily seats, in a way that is already the case for Labour with Libdems and Greens. I think this could be one of the drivers behind the betfair markets not coming in tighter for Labour, as well a the clear dissent at the top of the party - they must know something.
I would also like to see some polling on UKIP and 2010 Lib dem voters where they could only choose either Ed Milliband or David Cameron, as this will be the decision at the ballot box.
Re: Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and Saville. This gives a whole new meaning to "all round family enteretainers". Could the BBC be liable for some form of corporate responsibility?
A government report branding them "institutionally deviant"?
Whatever eventually happens to ISIS, I believe right now it is shaking people to the core (whether rightly or wrongly).
Three weeks ago few had heard of them, and now they're the biggest threat to civilisation. Really?
I'd never heard of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden on 10/09/01, what does it matter how long people have heard of ISIS?
They have already taken over several cities in one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the intention of making it an Islamic state, it is a big deal
Mr. Isam, I am sure it is a big deal for the poor sods who live in that ghastly part of the world. Mind you its only ghastly because of the attitudes of the people that have been and still are living there. A bunch of nutters telling their compatriots that they must live as if they were still in the 7th century (aside from modern weapons, transport and communication links of course) is not really a big deal down here in darkest Sussex.
Why are there no bees in my garden when two months ago it was full of them? That is matter of real concern to me. A punch -up between one bunch of homicidal nutters who think we should all live in the 7th century and another bunch of homicidal nutters who also think we should live in the 7th century but in a slightly different way? Nah, couldn't give a big rats arse.
Are there no bees in your garden ?
That is top enviro issue for UK citizens btw.
Don't worry about the bees. I recently read a good scientific article debunking all the 'bees are dying nonsense.' Can't remember where but will have a look for you.
Whatever eventually happens to ISIS, I believe right now it is shaking people to the core (whether rightly or wrongly).
Three weeks ago few had heard of them, and now they're the biggest threat to civilisation. Really?
I'd never heard of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden on 10/09/01, what does it matter how long people have heard of ISIS?
They have already taken over several cities in one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the intention of making it an Islamic state, it is a big deal
Mr. Isam, I am sure it is a big deal for the poor sods who live in that ghastly part of the world. Mind you its only ghastly because of the attitudes of the people that have been and still are living there. A bunch of nutters telling their compatriots that they must live as if they were still in the 7th century (aside from modern weapons, transport and communication links of course) is not really a big deal down here in darkest Sussex.
Why are there no bees in my garden when two months ago it was full of them? That is matter of real concern to me. A punch -up between one bunch of homicidal nutters who think we should all live in the 7th century and another bunch of homicidal nutters who also think we should live in the 7th century but in a slightly different way? Nah, couldn't give a big rats arse.
Are there no bees in your garden ?
That is top enviro issue for UK citizens btw.
I plant lots of purple flowers which seem to attract bees: alliums, verbena bonariensis, lavender etc.
There is currently a petition doing the rounds to get the government to reverse its decision to allow a bee-killing pesticide to be marketed in the UK. Bees are wonderful creatures and anything we can do to help them is A GOOD THING.
Rubbish. You don't need anything to put you off the Out side since you made up your mind long ago and will not countenance anything that might challenge that view.
Really? You must have missed my repeated posts when I have said that the balance of the argument is shifting towards the Out side.
You ignore the basic point I made that we would still have membership of the single market via EFTA of which we are an original independent signatory quite separate to the EU.
I ignored it because it is quite possibly wrong (no-one seems quite sure about this), but in any case irrelevant. There will still have to be a trade treaty with the EU
That is before we get on to the basic point that our balance of trade deficit is such that the EU simply cannot afford to not trade with us.
No-one has ever suggested they wouldn't trade with us. In practice, a free-trade agreement on goods should be very easy to negotiate, especially if (as I think is almost certain) we agree to continue observing EU product standards; I can't imagine we'd want our car manufacturers, for example, to have to meet both EU and some other vehicle type approvals.
The much more difficult part of the negotiations would be on services, which are very important for us but not for our EU friends, and where many of them actively don't want to give us free access.
Whatever eventually happens to ISIS, I believe right now it is shaking people to the core (whether rightly or wrongly).
In terms of geopolitics it's not that big a deal imo. If the Sunni Arabs in Syria and Iraq want self-determination as a group that's not unreasonable in itself.
Domestically though I think you're right it's likely to crystallize the stuff the media and political class have been playing down for years i.e. grooming gangs, illegal workers, electoral stuff etc.
Whatever eventually happens to ISIS, I believe right now it is shaking people to the core (whether rightly or wrongly).
Three weeks ago few had heard of them, and now they're the biggest threat to civilisation. Really?
I'd never heard of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden on 10/09/01, what does it matter how long people have heard of ISIS?
They have already taken over several cities in one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the intention of making it an Islamic state, it is a big deal
Mr. Isam, I am sure it is a big deal for the poor sods who live in that ghastly part of the world. Mind you its only ghastly because of the attitudes of the people that have been and still are living there. A bunch of nutters telling their compatriots that they must live as if they were still in the 7th century (aside from modern weapons, transport and communication links of course) is not really a big deal down here in darkest Sussex.
Why are there no bees in my garden when two months ago it was full of them? That is matter of real concern to me. A punch -up between one bunch of homicidal nutters who think we should all live in the 7th century and another bunch of homicidal nutters who also think we should live in the 7th century but in a slightly different way? Nah, couldn't give a big rats arse.
Are there no bees in your garden ?
That is top enviro issue for UK citizens btw.
I plant lots of purple flowers which seem to attract bees: alliums, verbena bonariensis, lavender etc.
There is currently a petition doing the rounds to get the government to reverse its decision to allow a bee-killing pesticide to be marketed in the UK. Bees are wonderful creatures and anything we can do to help them is A GOOD THING.
'You ignore the basic point I made that we would still have membership of the single market via EFTA of which we are an original independent signatory quite separate to the EU.'
Are you aware that EFTA membership guarantees the free movement of people,surely the last thing kippers want?
@NickPalmer - The honest answer is that I don't know! I guess it would depend on the extent of the variance from what was thought to be agreed.
The trouble is that there is a limit to what you can do to allow for the hypothetical. In the scenario you describe, it might not even be Cameron or a Conservative government who was in power when the Poles pulled the plug. It might even be your problem - what would a Labour government do in that scenario?
Edit: In addition, the problem exists in reverse if we decide to leave. What happens if, contrary to the assurances of the BOOers, we find that we can't negotiate an acceptable trade treaty with the EU?
That problem is very unlikely to exist. If we left the EU we would almost certainly remain members of EFTA. As such we would continue to trade as we had done before whilst studying the options for new trade agreements outside of EFTA if we chose to leave.
We do not simply go from 'in' to 'out' in terms of trade.
More to the point the idea that EU manufacturers would accept a loss of such a large slice of their market is fanciful - unlike the almost certainty that one of the 27 countries of the EU will mess up whatever deal Cameron feels he has negotiated as a basis for the referendum.
We are not and never have been members of EFTA. The EFTA members have trading agreements with EU by virtue of EEA membership or separate bilateral treaty, not by virtue of belonging to EFTA. In both cases the EU insists on free movement of people with the EU as a non-negotiable condition of those agreements.
UKIP could give lessons to the SNP in making it up as you go along.
Edit: "and never have been" is wrong. OTOH we left in 1973, giving an adequate time for the news to have filtered through to UKIP Towers,
That problem is very unlikely to exist. If we left the EU we would almost certainly remain members of EFTA. As such we would continue to trade as we had done before whilst studying the options for new trade agreements outside of EFTA if we chose to leave.
We do not simply go from 'in' to 'out' in terms of trade.
More to the point the idea that EU manufacturers would accept a loss of such a large slice of their market is fanciful - unlike the almost certainty that one of the 27 countries of the EU will mess up whatever deal Cameron feels he has negotiated as a basis for the referendum.
It's posts like that which put me off the Out side. Basically you're doing a Salmond: we'll get everything we want and it doesn't matter a hoot what the other side think. In the real world, it would be a negotiation, in which we would want some very specific things - most notably, access to the Single Market for services. Will we get them all, and have to give nothing in return? No, of course not, and anyone pretending otherwise is simply not being realistic.
I don't know, Mr. N. For sure we would have to negotiate, but of we went along and said, "Look fellows, you can flog your goods and services into us and we can into you with no let, hindrance or import duties, but you can stuff the rest of the EU shit up your arse and we get to control our own borders and law". Which country would turn down such an offer? And that I suspect is the big problem, if the UK could get away with such a deal the stampede from other countries to try and achieve similar would wreck the EU.
Rubbish. You don't need anything to put you off the Out side since you made up your mind long ago and will not countenance anything that might challenge that view.
Really? You must have missed my repeated posts when I have said that the balance of the argument is shifting towards the Out side.
You ignore the basic point I made that we would still have membership of the single market via EFTA of which we are an original independent signatory quite separate to the EU.
I ignored it because it is quite possibly wrong (no-one seems quite sure about this), but in case irrelevant. There will still have to be a trade treaty with the EU
That is before we get on to the basic point that our balance of trade deficit is such that the EU simply cannot afford to not trade with us.
No-one has ever suggested they wouldn't trade with us. In practice, a free-trade agreement on goods should be very easy to negotiate, especially if (as I think is almost certain) we agree to adopt EU product standards; I can't imagine we'd want our car manufacturers, for example, to have to meet both EU and some other vehicle type approvals.
The much more difficult part of the negotiations would be on services, which are very important for us but not for our EU friends, and where many of them actively don't want to give us free access.
But of course don't let simple things like facts get in the way of your blind Europhilia.
I don't know why you have become so personally unpleasant over the last few months. I guess it must be because I win all the arguments.
Nope, I have not got nasty at all. I have just come to realise what a dishonest person you are. Whilst there was any doubt I was willing to treat your views with respect. I no longer feel the need to do that.
This posting of yours is a classic case. You falsely claim that we would need to have atrade treaty with the EU. Of course that treaty already exists between the EU and EFTA/EEA. As I say,. unless you are claiming that the EU can pick and choose which members of EFTA it does business with your case is garbage.
Yet another argument you have lost because you ignore basic facts.
It's the first major study and the bees are just fine.
What is apparently not fine is the banning of neonicotinoids because their replacements are far, far worse. Though I think that was in the other article I read on this study.
A pioneering European Union survey into the impact of pests and diseases on honey bees found death rates were lower than feared, in part countering concerns about the collapse of colonies of the crop-pollinating insects.
Comments
Looking at the weekend Survation Poll it ended with a penalty shootout between the UK and Germany.
The question was:
Which country, the UK or Germany, would you personally rate as best at each of the following things?
The subject then changed with each penalty taken
Beer Cars Germany even sneaked a win on weather by a single percentage point.
But when it came to Healthcare System this was the result: That cannot possibly be a rational or informed view.
It also makes you realise it is not Labour which is strong on the NHS but rather a large majority of the public wanting to idealise its role and protect it from what they perceive to be adverse change.
The real margin of error in polls is much greater than merely the random sampling error. The YouGov margin is, practically speaking, around 5% on Lab lead, for example.
I'm hanging fire until I see the ComRes phone poll as The Lord Ashcroft phone poll has become synonymous with volatility.
It would give the Scots ideas and that is very dangerous.
He finds 25 (19%) 2010 Lib Dems who now say they will vote Conservative, compared to 18 (15%) who say they will now vote Labour.
When was the last time a poll showed the Tories taking more 2010 Lib Dem voters than Labour?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2675143/Cameron-brightest-Farage-weirdest-Voters-40-marginal-seats-verdict-Britains-political-leaders.html
Despite being a Tory supporter I remain amazed at the faith shown in Lord Ashcroft's polls on this site. Today's poll is good news but reliable? His marginal polls good for Labour but reliable? I don't bet thankfully but if I did these kind of polls would not be my guiding light.
FPT this goes to the heart of Labour's problem. In order for labour to shore up its working class vote, it will have to get much tougher on immigration - but its metropolitan vote is driving in the opposite direction.
But people being polled aren't naive; they know the polling will be used as a proxy to inform debate and justify (or not) policy. So they answer according to that.
They must be seriously bricking it about the northern working class vote. ISIS might be turning attitudes very quickly and very dramatically.
A defence of Islam artcle on CIF gets an absolute shallacking today. Not in the Mail. On CIF. Inconceivable 18 months ago.
Ed's attitude, no matter how Machiavellian, too closely resembles taking your trousers down and bracing yourself.
But it will all blow over fairly soon.
Note that the weighted base in these polls is less than 500.
An unreliable weekly look at four seats that will hopefully be early to declare on GE2015, and will give a good indication as to victory by either side...
Kingswood - Is now a comfortable Conservative HOLD.
Unsurprisingly, the same is true for Pendle, Vale of Glamorgan and Harlow.
And also, by extension, an explanation for the swingback phenomenon and why subsidiary questions on government confidence are not yet [consistently] being reflected in voting intention results..
FPT: Richard N - thanks for the clear answer: you say we will under Cameron have an in/out referendum in 2017 without waiting for any treaty. Suppose the answer is "in", perhaps because Cameron says good progress is being made and he's optimistic about the outcome. Suppose then that the Treaty is not quite what was expected, or there is no Treaty because someone (Poland, say) vetoes it. Would we then have a second referendum? Or would Cameron say that the matter was settled in 2017?
Bought Sakho into my fantasy side.
Amateur error.
37 years later, and it is almost as though he had a crystal ball
But, the world wont listen
His assessment of human nature, and the effect of mass immigration on both sides of the debate, is unsurpassed to this day. I recommend a read of it to anyone interested in politics
What we need to remember is that we seem to be in a generally volatile polling period at the moment.
Remember Ashcroft wasn't alone in showing Con leads last month - ICM and Populus also did. YouGov had the parties tied a couple of times as well I think?
Certainly something happened in May, but after the Euro's there was clear drift to Labour - Ashcroft seemed to "see" this shift first as well?
So what it could be is that Ashcroft Polls are actually very sensitive to the little shifts and nuances in public option that other pollsters don't pick up on that well?
Ignorance and certainty are a very dangerous combination.
Even more so than a Scot with an idea.
The trouble is that there is a limit to what you can do to allow for the hypothetical. In the scenario you describe, it might not even be Cameron or a Conservative government who was in power when the Poles pulled the plug. It might even be your problem - what would a Labour government do in that scenario?
Edit: In addition, the problem exists in reverse if we decide to leave. What happens if, contrary to the assurances of the BOOers, we find that we can't negotiate an acceptable trade treaty with the EU?
When people aren't really thinking about politics it's better news for Labour.
Or put another way, come the general election, Lab's stuffed!
It's a theory anyway...
Whatever else Cameron has done, he seems to have united his party.
For example, the percentage of 2010 Lib Dems now saying that they will vote Labour has been: 14%, 33%, 23%, 15% The unweighted base this week was just 104 2010 Lib Dem voters, so the margin of error on this is +/-10%, and so all of the polls could be consistent with this staying relatively steady at about 1-in-4.
On the other hand, there has been a monotonic decrease in the proportion of 2010 Conservative voters who now say they will vote UKIP: 18%, 18%, 17%, 14% - but as to how many you would need to be sure there was a real underlying change? I don't know, though I suspect more than four.
Whatever eventually happens to ISIS, I believe right now it is shaking people to the core (whether rightly or wrongly).
Government drops plan to give attorney general power over web news archives
Media organisations had opposed move to force takedown of past stories that could be prejudicial to jury in criminal trial
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/30/attorney-general-online-news-archives
09/06/2014 154 235 46 107 219 1003 < 25% CON
30/06/2014 191 209 55 98 218 1006 < 31% LAB
Lord A's raw numbers in each of his polls btw (Unweighted)
Quite nicely his weighting doesn't change them all that much.
My hunch is that 09/06/2014 poll was an outlier on the low side for the Conservatives, we need more data from future weeks to determine if this is a Labour outlier.
I didn;t claim ISIS were an epochal threat. All concerns over what is happening in Syria and Iraq may turn out to be completely irrational.
But that does mean they are not there.
Given that, the volatility of the Ashcroft polls is not at all surprising. In isolation they cannot possibly tell you anything about the week-to-week changes in public opinion.
(Subject to my earlier post - as to the "theoretically perfectly random sample" point, for example.)
They have already taken over several cities in one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the intention of making it an Islamic state, it is a big deal
This is getting very close to a boom.
Springtime for Basil ?
When Cameron is really pissed off about something he finds it hard to conceal it. He looked pissed off over Juncker and the EU-elite's general disdain for Britain last week and good on him for making a stand.
He lost, yes, but I prefer a politician to do the right thing and lose than do what GB did over the Lisbon Treaty and sneakily sign up to it off-camera.
As the Euro elections and council elections both suggested (though on very low turnouts) the two main parties are pretty much nip and tuck and one suspects that local factors may have a disproportionate effect next year.
Danny Blanchflower@D_Blanchflower·Jun 23
Ashcroft poll has labour 5 pt lead which has steadily widened since may which has been a shock to the panicking Tory spin machine
Expand Reply
Jim Pickard@PickardJE·1 hr
And now Ashcroft has the Tories substantially ahead @D_Blanchflower
Danny Blanchflower@D_Blanchflower·54 mins
@PickardJE i agree with @dpjhodges this one doesn't look credible as so much variation across polls - average in june is labour has 4pt lead
Jim Pickard@PickardJE·53 mins
The "rogue poll" defence @D_Blanchflower @DPJHodges
We do not simply go from 'in' to 'out' in terms of trade.
More to the point the idea that EU manufacturers would accept a loss of such a large slice of their market is fanciful - unlike the almost certainty that one of the 27 countries of the EU will mess up whatever deal Cameron feels he has negotiated as a basis for the referendum.
In the past rates would be going up faster than you can say Nigel Lawson.
Death from above will be simple exercise.
So I agree that these are not inconsistent with a stable level of support for the Conservatives.
Similarly, the Labour shares are: 32, 35, 31, 34, 32, 35, 33, 31 = mean of 32.9%
The Lib Dem mean is 8.3% and the UKIP mean is 16.1%
Putting these into Electoral Calculus [just for fun!] gives a Labour majority of 42.
Had in 2010 the tories got 33, labour 31 with libdem, Labour would have been 29 seats short of a majority, but 34 seats ahead of the Tories and in coalition with the Lib Dems would have had a stable majority of 68.
With the figures in todays poll (33/31/9) Labour are only 18 short of a majority, but are only 16 seats ahead of the tories; and in coalition with the Libdems would have a tiny majority of 8.
One of the reasons the coalition has worked is that it has a majority of 80. This means that the dissenters in both parties could be ignored. Indeed it has probably been easier for Cameron than if he had a small overall majority like Major did in 1992. I would think that the main bulk of the Liberals are rather easier to work with than the "Bastards" were.
Labour have no such luxury on these figures and a coalition with majority of 8 would be a nightmare to whip, especially as difficult financial decisions will be needed to continue to reduce the record deficit.
Why are there no bees in my garden when two months ago it was full of them? That is matter of real concern to me. A punch -up between one bunch of homicidal nutters who think we should all live in the 7th century and another bunch of homicidal nutters who also think we should live in the 7th century but in a slightly different way? Nah, couldn't give a big rats arse.
And I don't think they can be accused of being medieval either. With their penchant for cruxificition they are taking us way back into the first century AD.
Nuke 'em.
You ignore the basic point I made that we would still have membership of the single market via EFTA of which we are an original independent signatory quite separate to the EU.
Or are you saying that the EU will pick and choose which members of EFTA they do business with?
That is before we get on to the basic point that our balance of trade deficit is such that the EU simply cannot afford to not trade with us.
But of course don't let simple things like facts get in the way of your blind Europhilia.
That is top enviro issue for UK citizens btw.
It's very clear what we would get when we are in the EFTA: full access to the single market, as Norway has. The question is what we would get once we leave the EFTA. That is likely to be somewhere between what Korea gets and what Norway gets. For me, that would be well worth it to manage immigration into this country.
I would also like to see some polling on UKIP and 2010 Lib dem voters where they could only choose either Ed Milliband or David Cameron, as this will be the decision at the ballot box.
There is currently a petition doing the rounds to get the government to reverse its decision to allow a bee-killing pesticide to be marketed in the UK. Bees are wonderful creatures and anything we can do to help them is A GOOD THING.
The much more difficult part of the negotiations would be on services, which are very important for us but not for our EU friends, and where many of them actively don't want to give us free access. I don't know why you have become so personally unpleasant over the last few months. I guess it must be because I win all the arguments.
"Not very easy on the eye"
Yes he is!
Domestically though I think you're right it's likely to crystallize the stuff the media and political class have been playing down for years i.e. grooming gangs, illegal workers, electoral stuff etc.
'You ignore the basic point I made that we would still have membership of the single market via EFTA of which we are an original independent signatory quite separate to the EU.'
Are you aware that EFTA membership guarantees the free movement of people,surely the last thing kippers want?
RT @carldinnen: Exclusive ITV/ComRes Poll finds support for staying in the EU dropping over weekend; Stay 36% (down 4), Go 43% (up 1),...
UKIP could give lessons to the SNP in making it up as you go along.
Edit: "and never have been" is wrong. OTOH we left in 1973, giving an adequate time for the news to have filtered through to UKIP Towers,
This posting of yours is a classic case. You falsely claim that we would need to have atrade treaty with the EU. Of course that treaty already exists between the EU and EFTA/EEA. As I say,. unless you are claiming that the EU can pick and choose which members of EFTA it does business with your case is garbage.
Yet another argument you have lost because you ignore basic facts.
They love my ornamental sage, and it give a super display.
It's the first major study and the bees are just fine.
What is apparently not fine is the banning of neonicotinoids because their replacements are far, far worse. Though I think that was in the other article I read on this study.
A pioneering European Union survey into the impact of pests and diseases on honey bees found death rates were lower than feared, in part countering concerns about the collapse of colonies of the crop-pollinating insects.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-eu-bees-idUSBREA361JH20140407