There are 232 Labour MPs right now. If these numbers are anything like right, somewhere between 42 and 87 of them could be losing their jobs in 2020.
Well, that's it. These are all the indicators we've got. And they say this: if history and data are any guide at all, Labour can hope, at best, only to escape from the next General Election having merely been badly defeated. But if the party is unlucky, or things go very badly for them, at one extreme of established precedent they could be facing a historic rout that will reduce them to being the party only of English and Welsh inner cities and radical university towns. At one end of the data's limits, Labour will have ceased to be a truly national party.
Don't blame us. That's what recent history suggests. This is what the numbers say: cold, clear, inescapable, and there for all to see.
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
What's the point of your post, except to antagonise people who are undecided? Is that what you really want?
I'll criticise any group for stay or leave if I think they're doing things wrong; sadly, all the campaigns are pretty useless at the moment so it's fairly evens stevens.
Isam was using a shorthand 'undecided' based on his complaint earlier today that there are a number of commentators on here who claim to be undecided but clearly are not.
If it was shorthand, then it's fairly silly. 'The undecideds' include not just the people who may be faking their undecided status, but also people who are genuinely undecided. Such as, I hope is clear, people like myself.
'Leave' should be trying to reach out to people like me, not antagonise us. It makes it sound as if there are only two camps of people: 'them' or 'us'. As iSam quite likes football analogies, I fear that's the problem. .
I don't think that isam or Richard Tyndall have ever claimed to be undecided. FWIW, I am decided and unpersuadable (for Leave). Plenty are decided and unpersuadable on the Remain side. Fair enough. They have every right to hold their opinion.
I think isam's view (which is one I share) is that a number of people posting here claim to be "undecided" yet consistently argue against the "Leave" case and gloss over any shall-we-say "inaccuracies" in the "Remain" case. To me, it is hard to believe that people who consistently post in such a manner are as "undecided" as they claim (if at all). Which is not to say that there are not genuine undecideds (no inverted commas) posting here.
There are others who claim to be undecided and never hear a good word said about the EU. PB has always had plenty of "floating voters" or "used to be X but now voting Y". Some maybe true and some may be astroturfers and sock puppets. Such is the nature of the internet.
Good luck to "Leave" in persuading a British public that the EEA is fine and dandy while the EU is a spawn of satan. There is a difference, but not enough for those who want to ban EU regulations and stopping free movement of labour. Not enough either for those of us who actually rather like our EU membership and institutions. It looks like a losing strategy akin to Scotland's independence yet keeping all the British institutions that are popular. It falls between stools.
EEA membership would end about 90% of the legislation coming out of Brussels leaving only that relating to the single market. That is certainly enough for me.
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 21 hours ago “Marco Rubio will not win. Weak on illegal immigration, strong on amnesty and has the appearance to killers of the world as a “lightweight”
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
What's the point of your post, except to antagonise people who are undecided? Is that what you really want?
I'll criticise any group for stay or leave if I think they're doing things wrong; sadly, all the campaigns are pretty useless at the moment so it's fairly evens stevens.
Isam was using a shorthand 'undecided' based on his complaint earlier today that there are a number of commentators on here who claim to be undecided but clearly are not.
If it was shorthand, then it's fairly silly. 'The undecideds' include not just the people who may be faking their undecided status, but also people who are genuinely undecided. Such as, I hope is clear, people like myself.
'Leave' should be trying to reach out to people like me, not antagonise us. It makes it sound as if there are only two camps of people: 'them' or 'us'. As iSam quite likes football analogies, I fear that's the problem. .
I don't think that isam or Richard Tyndall have ever claimed to be undecided. FWIW, I am decided and unpersuadable (for Leave). Plenty are decided and unpersuadable on the Remain side. Fair enough. They have every right to hold their opinion. ...
There are others who claim to be undecided and never hear a good word said about the EU. PB has always had plenty of "floating voters" or "used to be X but now voting Y". Some maybe true and some may be astroturfers and sock puppets. Such is the nature of the internet.
Good luck to "Leave" in persuading a British public that the EEA is fine and dandy while the EU is a spawn of satan. There is a difference, but not enough for those who want to ban EU regulations and stopping free movement of labour. Not enough either for those of us who actually rather like our EU membership and institutions. It looks like a losing strategy akin to Scotland's independence yet keeping all the British institutions that are popular. It falls between stools.
The issue is the eurozone voting as a block. It turns the EU into a community of about oh.. 6 or 7, with on massive member with all the votes and the rest minnows being led along. This is what ought to turn everyone against the EU if we are not able to effectively semi detached ourselves from it. The EEA might well be a plausible alternative, but it will be very little different from now and probably not much different from any just not quite acceptable compromise we might have gotten to that did not quite keep us in the EU.
Just my opinion, and not referring to you (I wouldn't know how you felt about the EU) but I think there is a certain intellectual fashion in appearing to be undecided/having no strong opinion about things in general, as it seems more reasoned than actually having an opinion, despite actually, and obviously, having a pretty firm opinion
Its a phoney tactic to make the actor seem measured and celebral rather than a shrieking fanatic
If you don't know how I feel about the EU then you either haven't been reading or are dafter than Basil on acid. I mean, really? As I've said many times in the past (and I can't believe you haven't seen this): I'm falling off the fence towards leave. Your attitude isn't likely to give me a soft landing on your side. I'm persuadable, but it would be a harder job for 'stay' to persuade me than 'leave''.
Sometimes it seems that you (and I mean you personally) think there are two groups: people who agree with you and people who do not. You may want to moderate your language to avoid pi**ing off people who are genuinely undecided. It's a football match in your eyes: there are no real neutrals.
You wish the country to leave the EU. You want others to vote for leave the EU. You won't win if just the die-hard leavers were the only ones to vote for leave. You need the undecideds. You need people like me.
Perhaps you should reconsider your original post in that light.
The issue is the eurozone voting as a block. It turns the EU into a community of about oh.. 6 or 7, with on massive member with all the votes and the rest minnows being led along. This is what ought to turn everyone against the EU if we are not able to effectively semi detached ourselves from it. The EEA might well be a plausible alternative, but it will be very little different from now and probably not much different from any just not quite acceptable compromise we might have gotten to that did not quite keep us in the EU.
Keep making up the same old rubbish Flightpath. No matter how many times you repeat it it still doesn't make it true.
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
What's the point of your post, except to antagonise people who are undecided? Is that what you really want?
I'll criticise any group for stay or leave if I think they're doing things wrong; sadly, all the campaigns are pretty useless at the moment so it's fairly evens stevens.
Isam was using a shorthand 'undecided' based on his complaint earlier today that there are a number of commentators on here who claim to be undecided but clearly are not.
If it was shorthand, then it's fairly silly. 'The undecideds' include not just the people who may be faking their undecided status, but also people who are genuinely undecided. Such as, I hope is clear, people like myself.
'Leave' should be trying to reach out to people like me, not antagonise us. It makes it sound as if there are only two camps of people: 'them' or 'us'. As iSam quite likes football analogies, I fear that's the problem. .
I don't think that isam or Richard Tyndall have ever claimed to be undecided. FWIW, I am decided and unpersuadable (for Leave). Plenty are decided and unpersuadable on the Remain side. Fair enough. They have every right to hold their opinion.
I think isam's view (which is one I share) is that a number of people posting here claim to be "undecided" yet consistently argue against the "Leave" case and gloss over any shall-we-say "inaccuracies" in the "Remain" case. To me, it is hard to believe that people who consistently post in such a manner are as "undecided" as they claim (if at all). Which is not to say that there are not genuine undecideds (no inverted commas) posting here.
There are others who claim to be undecided and never hear a good word said about the EU. PB has always had plenty of "floating voters" or "used to be X but now voting Y". Some maybe true and some may be astroturfers and sock puppets. Such is the nature of the internet.
EEA membership would end about 90% of the legislation coming out of Brussels leaving only that relating to the single market. That is certainly enough for me.
Like I said, it is going to be a tough sell. Most Brits confuse the various European institutions. EEA membership means free movement of labour, and I cannot see that being a selling point to the Europhobes.
To many of us being in the EEA looks a lot like being in the EU, only without a seat at the top table.
Like I said, it is going to be a tough sell. Most Brits confuse the various European institutions. EEA membership means free movement of labour, and I cannot see that being a selling point to the Europhobes.
To many of us being in the EEA looks a lot like being in the EU, only without a seat at the top table.
In that case perhaps you should educate yourself as to why that impression is wrong.
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
What's the point of your post, except to antagonise people who are undecided? Is that what you really want?
I'll criticise any group for stay or leave if I think they're doing things wrong; sadly, all the campaigns are pretty useless at the moment so it's fairly evens stevens.
Isam was using a shorthand 'undecided' based on his complaint earlier today that there are a number of commentators on here who claim to be undecided but clearly are not.
If it was shorthand, then it's fairly silly. 'The undecideds' include not just the people who may be faking their undecided status, but also people who are genuinely undecided. Such as, I hope is clear, people like myself.
'Leave' should be trying to reach out to people like me, not antagonise us. It makes it sound as if there are only two camps of people: 'them' or 'us'. As iSam quite likes football analogies, I fear that's the problem.
I also think there is a difference between 'decided' and 'unpersuadable'. Someone might have decided on their vote on the balance of the facts (or evidence) as is currently public, but might be persuadable into the other camp if the facts or evidence alters. It seems some (although not all) of the people iSam is complaining about are decided but potentially persuadable to the other view..
Which, to be fair, is more than others (such as yourself or iSam) are the other way: decided and unpersuadable.
I don't think that isam or Richard Tyndall have ever claimed to be undecided. FWIW, I am decided and unpersuadable (for Leave). Plenty are decided and unpersuadable on the Remain side. Fair enough. They have every right to hold their opinion.
I think isam's view (which is one I share) is that a number of people posting here claim to be "undecided" yet consistently argue against the "Leave" case and gloss over any shall-we-say "inaccuracies" in the "Remain" case. To me, it is hard to believe that people who consistently post in such a manner are as "undecided" as they claim (if at all). Which is not to say that there are not genuine undecideds (no inverted commas) posting here.
But that's not what he wrote. And I also think you're wrong that there are 'a number' of such people: it's a matter of perception. Both the leave and stay camp have problems (in fact, both campaigns are awful at the moment): pointing out issues with one or other does not necessarily make you a hidebound stayer or leaver.
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
What's the point of your post, except to antagonise people who are undecided? Is that what you really want?
I'll criticise any group for stay or leave if I think they're doing things wrong; sadly, all the campaigns are pretty useless at the moment so it's fairly evens stevens.
Isam was using a shorthand 'undecided' based on his complaint earlier today that there are a number of commentators on here who claim to be undecided but clearly are not.
If it was shorthand, then it's fairly silly. 'The undecideds' include not just the people who may be faking their undecided status, but also people who are genuinely undecided. Such as, I hope is clear, people like myself.
'Leave' should be trying to reach out to people like me, not antagonise us. It makes it sound as if there are only two camps of people: 'them' or 'us'. As iSam quite likes football analogies, I fear that's the problem. .
I don't think that isam or Richard Tyndall have ever claimed to be undecided. FWIW, I am decided and unpersuadable (for Leave). Plenty are decided and unpersuadable on the Remain side. Fair enough. They have every right to hold their opinion. ...
There are others who claim to be undecided and never hear a good word said about the EU. PB has always had plenty of "floating voters" or "used to be X but now voting Y". Some maybe true and some may be astroturfers and sock puppets. Such is the nature of the internet.
Good luck
The issue is the eurozone voting as a block. It turns the EU into a community of about oh.. 6 or 7, with on massive member with all the votes and the rest minnows being led along. This is what ought to turn everyone against the EU if we are not able to effectively semi detached ourselves from it. The EEA might well be a plausible alternative, but it will be very little different from now and probably not much different from any just not quite acceptable compromise we might have gotten to that did not quite keep us in the EU.
The non-EU EEA would dramatically change if we were part of it. We would have 2/3 of the GDP and more than 2/3 of the people. The dynamics would change even if the rules did not.
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
What's the point of your post, except to antagonise people who are undecided? Is that what nk they're doing things wrong; sadly, all the campaigns are pretty useless at the moment so it's fairly evens stevens.
Isam was using a shorthand 'undecided' based on his complaint earlier today that there are a number of commentators on here who claim to be undecided but clearly are not.
'Leave' should be trying to reach out to people like me, not antagonise us. It makes it sound as if there are only two camps of people: 'them' or 'us'. As iSam quite likes football analogies, I fear that's the problem. .
I don't think that isam or Richard Tyndall have ever claimed to be undecided. FWIW, I am decided and unpersuadable (for Leave). Plenty are decided and unpersuadable on the Remain side. Fair enough. They have every right to hold their opinion.
I "undecided" as they claim (if at all). Which is not to say that there are not genuine undecideds (no inverted commas) posting here.
There are others who claim to be undecided and never hear a good word said about the EU. PB has always had plenty of "floating voters" or "used to be X but now voting Y". Some maybe true and some may be astroturfers and sock puppets. Such is the nature of the internet.
Good luck to "Leave" in persuading a British public that the EEA is fine and dandy while the EU is a spawn of satan. There is a difference, but not enough for those who want to ban EU regulations and stopping free movement of labour. Not enough either for those of us who actually rather like our EU membership and institutions. It looke popular. It falls between stools.
I am an undecided. I am 'eurosceptic', and think it is probably slightly not in our interests to remain a member, but its in the balance.
Good things about the EU? People like the late Brittan and Mandelson would tell you about how the press talk about how different the EU is to Britain and our values, but they have actually got it wrong, it is the UK that have won the intellectual battles. It is the neo liberal, anglo saxon, thatcherite attitude to enterprise and the economy which dominates the operation of the Single Market.
Not sure on that one, however I do see that it was bullying from the EEC which has forced us to clean up our environment in the 90s. Our air quality has not been so clean since the industrial revolution as a result.
Just my opinion, and not referring to you (I wouldn't know how you felt about the EU) but I think there is a certain intellectual fashion in appearing to be undecided/having no strong opinion about things in general, as it seems more reasoned than actually having an opinion, despite actually, and obviously, having a pretty firm opinion
Its a phoney tactic to make the actor seem measured and celebral rather than a shrieking fanatic
If you don't know how I feel about the EU then you either haven't been reading or are dafter than Basil on acid. I mean, really? As I've said many times in the past (and I can't believe you haven't seen this): I'm falling off the fence towards leave. Your attitude isn't likely to give me a soft landing on your side. I'm persuadable, but it would be a harder job for 'stay' to persuade me than 'leave''.
Sometimes it seems that you (and I mean you personally) think there are two groups: people who agree with you and people who do not. You may want to moderate your language to avoid pi**ing off people who are genuinely undecided. It's a football match in your eyes: there are no real neutrals.
You wish the country to leave the EU. You want others to vote for leave the EU. You won't win if just the die-hard leavers were the only ones to vote for leave. You need the undecideds. You need people like me.
Perhaps you should reconsider your original post in that light.
Nah its ok
I don't think myself important enough to shift one vote, although I must say a pet hate is "You need people like me..." but there you go
As Richard Tyndall has tried to explain, I was making a snide remark about people who pretend to be undecided but instinctively bat for REMAIN... it was a bit of a joke which, and we have been here before, you have misread and now wont let go of
I am not lying, I didn't know how you felt about the EU, I don't read every post on here, and you often write long posts about things I don't know anything about, like trains, engineering, Turkey etc so I skip them
Jeb Bush is relaunching his campaign - the "Jeb Can Fix It" tour. He says he's running on his record, not rhetoric.
We'll see. Word is his money people are really rattled.
He says he's having fun - but looks like he's about to have a root canal.
The last time we had a show with a celeb beginning with a J who will 'Fix it' it did not turn out so well!
Can't be long before Lucy Powell, inspired by Jeb Bush, comes up with the "Jez'll Fix It" Campaign slogan.
I'm sure she still has it in her to trump the Edstone....
'Jez we can' is pretty much the same as Jez'll Fix It. But really this is a sterile discussion when we reduce ourselves to who has copyright on slogans. Is everyone coincidentally with the name Saville to be ridiculed??? And I think 'ending badly' is a pretty poor and trite misnomer for what Saville was al!owed to get away with.
Jeb Bush is relaunching his campaign - the "Jeb Can Fix It" tour. He says he's running on his record, not rhetoric.
We'll see. Word is his money people are really rattled.
He says he's having fun - but looks like he's about to have a root canal.
The last time we had a show with a celeb beginning with a J who will 'Fix it' it did not turn out so well!
Can't be long before Lucy Powell, inspired by Jeb Bush, comes up with the "Jez'll Fix It" Campaign slogan.
I'm sure she still has it in her to trump the Edstone....
'Jez we can' is pretty much the same as Jez'll Fix It. But really this is a sterile discussion when we reduce ourselves to who has copyright on slogans. Is everyone coincidentally with the name Saville to be ridiculed??? And I think 'ending badly' is a pretty poor and trite misnomer for what Saville was al!owed to get away with.
PB can surely do better than this
Well politics is politics and journalists have already hopped on the story, so even if we played the moral high ground and ignored it it is already out there
Like I said, it is going to be a tough sell. Most Brits confuse the various European institutions. EEA membership means free movement of labour, and I cannot see that being a selling point to the Europhobes.
To many of us being in the EEA looks a lot like being in the EU, only without a seat at the top table.
Please, Doc, go and read up on the EEA and actually come to terms with what it is. Pretty, please.
Frankly you make yourself look a complete eegit, as do others, when you, and they, talk about joining the EEA as opposed to the EU.
I just have a feeling that neither Trump nor Carson will make it. I can even imagine a Cruz Rubio (or vice versa) ticket. A propos of nothing.
It was Carson Trump in Iowa in another poll today, Rubio and Cruz have certainly made some ground but it is difficult to see how much more they can squeeze and while Bush's voters may go to Rubio those from Cruz would go to Trump
The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next
What's the point of your post, except to antagonise people who are undecided? Is that what you really want?
I'll criticise any group for stay or leave if I think they're doing things wrong; sadly, all the campaigns are pretty useless at the moment so it's fairly evens stevens.
Isam was using a shorthand 'undecided' based on his complaint earlier today that there are a number of commentators on here who claim to be undecided but clearly are not.
If it was shorthand, then it's fairly silly. 'The undecideds' include not just the people who may be faking their undecided status, but also people who are genuinely undecided. Such as, I hope is clear, people like myself.
'Leave' should be trying to reach out to people like me, not antagonise us. It makes it sound as if there are only two camps of people: 'them' or 'us'. As iSam quite likes football analogies, I fear that's the problem. .
There are others who claim to be undecided and never hear a good word said about the EU. PB has always had plenty of "floating voters" or "used to be X but now voting Y". Some maybe true and some may be astroturfers and sock puppets. Such is the nature of the internet.
Good luck
The issue is the eurozone voting as a block. It turns the EU into a community of about oh.. 6 or 7, with on massive member with all the votes and the rest minnows being led along. This is what ought to turn everyone against the EU if we are not able to effectively semi detached ourselves from it. The EEA might well be a plausible alternative, but it will be very little different from now and probably not much different from any just not quite acceptable compromise we might have gotten to that did not quite keep us in the EU.
The non-EU EEA would dramatically change if we were part of it. We would have 2/3 of the GDP and more than 2/3 of the people. The dynamics would change even if the rules did not.
We on our own would effectively 'be' the non-eu EEA. So frankly I do not see the non EU EEA having any more clout than we would on our own. Would EFTA be happy to have such a dominant partner? What would happen to EFTA if Norway actually then joined the eu? Not that I see this happening if it meant them giving up the krona. But you never know, the oil price is low, the costs of association with the EU is going up.
I just have a feeling that neither Trump nor Carson will make it. I can even imagine a Cruz Rubio (or vice versa) ticket. A propos of nothing.
It was Carson Trump in Iowa in another poll today, Rubio and Cruz have certainly made some ground but it is difficult to see how much more they can squeeze and while Bush's voters may go to Rubio those from Cruz would go to Trump
Things will start to shake out once the primaries start, and in particularly the S.E.C. primary. I could easily be wrong and I have no rational argument to offer - just a feeling.
Just my opinion, and not referring to you (I wouldn't know how you felt about the EU) but I think there is a certain intellectual fashion in appearing to be undecided/having no strong opinion about things in general, as it seems more reasoned than actually having an opinion, despite actually, and obviously, having a pretty firm opinion
Its a phoney tactic to make the actor seem measured and celebral rather than a shrieking fanatic
If you don't know how I feel about the EU then you either haven't been reading or are dafter than Basil on acid. I mean, really? As I've said many times in the past (and I can't believe you haven't seen this): I'm falling off the fence towards leave. Your attitude isn't likely to give me a soft landing on your side. I'm persuadable, but it would be a harder job for 'stay' to persuade me than 'leave''.
Sometimes it seems that you (and I mean you personally) think there are two groups: people who agree with you and people who do not. You may want to moderate your language to avoid pi**ing off people who are genuinely undecided. It's a football match in your eyes: there are no real neutrals.
You wish the country to leave the EU. You want others to vote for leave the EU. You won't win if just the die-hard leavers were the only ones to vote for leave. You need the undecideds. You need people like me.
Perhaps you should reconsider your original post in that light.
Nah its ok
I don't think myself important enough to shift one vote, although I must say a pet hate is "You need people like me..." but there you go
As Richard Tyndall has tried to explain, I was making a snide remark about people who pretend to be undecided but instinctively bat for REMAIN... it was a bit of a joke which, and we have been here before, you have misread and now wont let go of
I am not lying, I didn't know how you felt about the EU, I don't read every post on here, and you often write long posts about things I don't know anything about, like trains, engineering, Turkey etc so I skip them
Perhaps you might learn something if you didn't skip them.
Otherwise, learn the difference between 'the' and 'some'. That's not a misreading: it's what you wrote. You may not have written your intention, but that's your problem, not mine.
I'm glad I've struck upon one of your pet hates. What other ones do you have, just so I can avoid them?
Jeb Bush is relaunching his campaign - the "Jeb Can Fix It" tour. He says he's running on his record, not rhetoric.
We'll see. Word is his money people are really rattled.
He says he's having fun - but looks like he's about to have a root canal.
The last time we had a show with a celeb beginning with a J who will 'Fix it' it did not turn out so well!
Can't be long before Lucy Powell, inspired by Jeb Bush, comes up with the "Jez'll Fix It" Campaign slogan.
I'm sure she still has it in her to trump the Edstone....
'Jez we can' is pretty much the same as Jez'll Fix It. But really this is a sterile discussion when we reduce ourselves to who has copyright on slogans. Is everyone coincidentally with the name Saville to be ridiculed??? And I think 'ending badly' is a pretty poor and trite misnomer for what Saville was al!owed to get away with.
PB can surely do better than this
Well politics is politics and journalists have already hopped on the story, so even if we played the moral high ground and ignored it it is already out there
?? Of course it's out there, but so what? Do we need to join in? Is it so difficult to be a bit better than... Journalists!!!? Anyway I am defeating my object, but I think a bit more decorum might have been in order.
I just have a feeling that neither Trump nor Carson will make it. I can even imagine a Cruz Rubio (or vice versa) ticket. A propos of nothing.
It was Carson Trump in Iowa in another poll today, Rubio and Cruz have certainly made some ground but it is difficult to see how much more they can squeeze and while Bush's voters may go to Rubio those from Cruz would go to Trump
Things will start to shake out once the primaries start, and in particularly the S.E.C. primary. I could easily be wrong and I have no rational argument to offer - just a feeling.
We on our own would effectively 'be' the non-eu EEA. So frankly I do not see the non EU EEA having any more clout than we would on our own. Would EFTA be happy to have such a dominant partner? What would happen to EFTA if Norway actually then joined the eu? Not that I see this happening if it meant them giving up the krona. But you never know, the oil price is low, the costs of association with the EU is going up.
The cost might go up. But even if it does it will still be a tiny fraction of what they will have to pay if they join the EU. Norway, like so many other subjects, is something else you apparently know nothing about.
Just my opinion, and not referring to you (I wouldn't know how you felt about the EU) but I think there is a certain intellectual fashion in appearing to be undecided/having no strong opinion about things in general, as it seems more reasoned than actually having an opinion, despite actually, and obviously, having a pretty firm opinion
Its a phoney tactic to make the actor seem measured and celebral rather than a shrieking fanatic
Sometimes it seems that you (and I mean you personally) think there are two groups: people who agree with you and people who do not. You may want to moderate your language to avoid pi**ing off people who are genuinely undecided. It's a football match in your eyes: there are no real neutrals.
You wish the country to leave the EU. You want others to vote for leave the EU. You won't win if just the die-hard leavers were the only ones to vote for leave. You need the undecideds. You need people like me.
Perhaps you should reconsider your original post in that light.
Nah its ok
I don't think myself important enough to shift one vote, although I must say a pet hate is "You need people like me..." but there you go
As Richard Tyndall has tried to explain, I was making a snide remark about people who pretend to be undecided but instinctively bat for REMAIN... it was a bit of a joke which, and we have been here before, you have misread and now wont let go of
I am not lying, I didn't know how you felt about the EU, I don't read every post on here, and you often write long posts about things I don't know anything about, like trains, engineering, Turkey etc so I skip them
Perhaps you might learn something if you didn't skip them.
Otherwise, learn the difference between 'the' and 'some'. That's not a misreading: it's what you wrote. You may not have written your intention, but that's your problem, not mine.
I'm glad I've struck upon one of your pet hates. What other ones do you have, just so I can avoid them?
Don't mind me, I wouldn't like to stop you writing whatever you want
You have to understand, and I don't know why you are cocking a deaf one to this, that I was referring to people that are pretending to be undecided. You have missed the joke and keep missing it. That certainly isn't my problem, its yours, as I couldn't give a toss what you think about it and you keep bringing it up
I am an undecided. I am 'eurosceptic', and think it is probably slightly not in our interests to remain a member, but its in the balance.
Good things about the EU? People like the late Brittan and Mandelson would tell you about how the press talk about how different the EU is to Britain and our values, but they have actually got it wrong, it is the UK that have won the intellectual battles. It is the neo liberal, anglo saxon, thatcherite attitude to enterprise and the economy which dominates the operation of the Single Market.
Not sure on that one, however I do see that it was bullying from the EEC which has forced us to clean up our environment in the 90s. Our air quality has not been so clean since the industrial revolution as a result.
Might we have done it ourselves? Possibly.
I think we would have cleaned up our environment more. And I'm not sure your assertion is correct anyway: the clean air act that mostly cleared up our smog problems was passed in the mid-50's, well before the EU. From my (admittedly limited) knowledge, that was the biggie that much of out subsequent legislation was built upon. I can't see a reason why a number of other similar regulations would not have been passed if we were not in the EU.
It's like smoking in pubs: some countries (e.g. Scotland) led the way, and others followed when they saw how well it had (or had not) worked. And it works the other way: Euro NCAP is heavily based upon the UK scheme, which in turn was influenced by US and Antipodean schemes.
Sometimes ideas are good whoever has them, and sometimes good ideas sprout independently of each other because they are good ideas.
I just have a feeling that neither Trump nor Carson will make it. I can even imagine a Cruz Rubio (or vice versa) ticket. A propos of nothing.
It was Carson Trump in Iowa in another poll today, Rubio and Cruz have certainly made some ground but it is difficult to see how much more they can squeeze and while Bush's voters may go to Rubio those from Cruz would go to Trump
Things will start to shake out once the primaries start, and in particularly the S.E.C. primary. I could easily be wrong and I have no rational argument to offer - just a feeling.
They certainly do at present. Harold Wilson noted that a week is a long time in politics. With a campaign as long as this one who knows what might happen before we're done.
Not sure what the point is of quoting a foreign newspaper about the US election - that's like quoting La Stampa about a UK election.
Jeb Bush is relaunching his campaign - the "Jeb Can Fix It" tour. He says he's running on his record, not rhetoric.
We'll see. Word is his money people are really rattled.
He says he's having fun - but looks like he's about to have a root canal.
The last time we had a show with a celeb beginning with a J who will 'Fix it' it did not turn out so well!
Can't be long before Lucy Powell, inspired by Jeb Bush, comes up with the "Jez'll Fix It" Campaign slogan.
I'm sure she still has it in her to trump the Edstone....
'Jez we can' is pretty much the same as Jez'll Fix It. But really this is a sterile discussion when we reduce ourselves to who has copyright on slogans. Is everyone coincidentally with the name Saville to be ridiculed??? And I think 'ending badly' is a pretty poor and trite misnomer for what Saville was al!owed to get away with.
PB can surely do better than this
Well politics is politics and journalists have already hopped on the story, so even if we played the moral high ground and ignored it it is already out there
?? Of course it's out there, but so what? Do we need to join in? Is it so difficult to be a bit better than... Journalists!!!? Anyway I am defeating my object, but I think a bit more decorum might have been in order.
Oh for goodness sake, no one is condoning what Saville did just stating the obvious that this was a gaffe by the Bush campaign which even a quick Google search would have avoided!
"That slogan is now inexorably linked, in the British popular imagination, to a depraved and vile criminal, whose unconscionable acts were covered up by powerful people for decades. And also, now, to Jeb Bush."
The issue is the eurozone voting as a block. It turns the EU into a community of about oh.. 6 or 7, with on massive member with all the votes and the rest minnows being led along. This is what ought to turn everyone against the EU if we are not able to effectively semi detached ourselves from it. The EEA might well be a plausible alternative, but it will be very little different from now and probably not much different from any just not quite acceptable compromise we might have gotten to that did not quite keep us in the EU.
Keep making up the same old rubbish Flightpath. No matter how many times you repeat it it still doesn't make it true.
Nothing is being made up , indeed as I regularly say I could see us in the EEA.
Trouble with you and your ilk is you will not admit to the shortcomings. What I see is a vast amount of sound and fury which will cause all sorts of divisions and will lead us effectively nowhere. The real issue is the eurozone and how we might relate to it. And it is a very big issue indeed. This might mean that no satisfactory solution can be found from within the EU. This is what we need to look at when as they say the results are in. This might mean that the best or least worst option is to leave but remain in the EEA and build up a relationship from there. This in my view will be little different from now and it will still leave us having to deal with a large continental wide country right on our doorstep making geoecopolitocal decisions we have no way to influence. This is what the public will be faced with whether you like it or not. What is on offer from Leave?
I just have a feeling that neither Trump nor Carson will make it. I can even imagine a Cruz Rubio (or vice versa) ticket. A propos of nothing.
It was Carson Trump in Iowa in another poll today, Rubio and Cruz have certainly made some ground but it is difficult to see how much more they can squeeze and while Bush's voters may go to Rubio those from Cruz would go to Trump
Things will start to shake out once the primaries start, and in particularly the S.E.C. primary. I could easily be wrong and I have no rational argument to offer - just a feeling.
They certainly do at present. Harold Wilson noted that a week is a long time in politics. With a campaign as long as this one who knows what might happen before we're done.
Not sure what the point is of quoting a foreign newspaper about the US election - that's like quoting La Stampa about a UK election.
GOP voters seem in a similar mood to Labour voters in the summer, many thought Corbyn would lose eventually, in the end he won. Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard, he is not some random Brit making a passing comment on US politics and his comparison between Goldwater and Trump is apt. Indeed Ferguson is himself a Republican backer and was an adviser to McCain in 2008 and backed Romney in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
I don't think that isam or Richard Tyndall have ever claimed to be undecided. FWIW, I am decided and unpersuadable (for Leave). Plenty are decided and unpersuadable on the Remain side. Fair enough. They have every right to hold their opinion.
Anyhoo, I come here not to mock the infinitely-expandible future that awaits a Brexit, where taxes are zero, growth is infinite, exports go up, prices are zero, all migrants leave, no child is unhugged and every granny gets a kiss goodnight.
Instead I come here to point out a curious phenomenon. I'm buttonpunching between the 1995 De Palma Mission: Impossible on Film 4, and the upcoming trailers for the 2016 X-Files revival, and I realise with horror that Gillian Anderson (English accent) and the younger Vanessa Redgrave have the same voice - they are voice twins
Just my opinion, and not referring to you (I wouldn't know how you felt about the EU) but I think there is a certain intellectual fashion in appearing to be undecided/having no strong opinion about things in general, as it seems more reasoned than actually having an opinion, despite actually, and obviously, having a pretty firm opinion
Its a phoney tactic to make the actor seem measured and celebral rather than a shrieking fanatic
Sometimes it seems that you (and I mean you personally) think there are two groups: people who agree with you and people who do not. You may want to moderate your language to avoid pi**ing off people who are genuinely undecided. It's a football match in your eyes: there are no real neutrals.
You wish the country to leave the EU. You want others to vote for leave the EU. You won't win if just the die-hard leavers were the only ones to vote for leave. You need the undecideds. You need people like me.
Perhaps you should reconsider your original post in that light.
Nah its ok
I don't think myself important enough to shift one vote, although I must say a pet hate is "You need people like me..." but there you go
As Richard Tyndall has tried to explain, I was making a snide remark about people who pretend to be undecided but instinctively bat for REMAIN... it was a bit of a joke which, and we have been here before, you have misread and now wont let go of
I am not lying, I didn't know how you felt about the EU, I don't read every post on here, and you often write long posts about things I don't know anything about, like trains, engineering, Turkey etc so I skip them
Perhaps you might learn something if you didn't skip them.
Otherwise, learn the difference between 'the' and 'some'. That's not a misreading: it's what you wrote. You may not have written your intention, but that's your problem, not mine.
I'm glad I've struck upon one of your pet hates. What other ones do you have, just so I can avoid them?
Don't mind me, I wouldn't like to stop you writing whatever you want
You have to understand, and I don't know why you are cocking a deaf one to this, that I was referring to people that are pretending to be undecided. You have missed the joke and keep missing it. That certainly isn't my problem, its yours, as I couldn't give a toss what you think about it and you keep bringing it up
This is boring, forget it
But that's not what you wrote. It's not me having a deaf ear, it's you (wilfully, I assume) misunderstanding what you wrote.
@josiasJessop Look, I'm not isam's spokesperson (honest!), but if you had wasted as much of your day reading pb.com as I have today, you would know that he was referring to certain posters who he perceives to be fake "undecideds" and not to all who say they are, as yet, undecided. In other words, he wasn't referring to you (or at least I don't believe so).
I like your engineering posts. My daughter is considering becoming an engineer, but is unclear what engineers actually do on a day to day basis. Trains I don't find so interesting.
@NCPoliticsUK: Survation has a poll out for Unite... Unclear if it's normally weighted, by tabs imply 36/33/6/17 - closest since GE https://t.co/BywOZp1fXw
I just have a feeling that neither Trump nor Carson will make it. I can even imagine a Cruz Rubio (or vice versa) ticket. A propos of nothing.
It was Carson Trump in Iowa in another poll today, Rubio and Cruz have certainly made some ground but it is difficult to see how much more they can squeeze and while Bush's voters may go to Rubio those from Cruz would go to Trump
Things will start to shake out once the primaries start, and in particularly the S.E.C. primary. I could easily be wrong and I have no rational argument to offer - just a feeling.
They certainly do at present. Harold Wilson noted that a week is a long time in politics. With a campaign as long as this one who knows what might happen before we're done.
Not sure what the point is of quoting a foreign newspaper about the US election - that's like quoting La Stampa about a UK election.
GOP voters seem in a similar mood to Labour voters in the summer, many thought Corbyn would lose eventually, in the end he won. Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard, he is not some random Brit making a passing comment on US politics and his comparison between Goldwater and Trump is apt. Indeed Ferguson is himself a Republican backer and was an adviser to McCain in 2008 and backed Romney in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
I know who he is - I have one of his books - nor am I criticizing his views.
But for a US election quote US media. For a UK election, quote UK media.
The issue is the eurozone voting as a block. It turns the EU into a community of about oh.. 6 or 7, with on massive member with all the votes and the rest minnows being led along. This is what ought to turn everyone against the EU if we are not able to effectively semi detached ourselves from it. The EEA might well be a plausible alternative, but it will be very little different from now and probably not much different from any just not quite acceptable compromise we might have gotten to that did not quite keep us in the EU.
Keep making up the same old rubbish Flightpath. No matter how many times you repeat it it still doesn't make it true.
Nothing is being made up , indeed as I regularly say I could see us in the EEA.
Trouble with you and your ilk is you will not admit to the shortcomings. What I see is a vast amount of sound and fury which will cause all sorts of divisions and will lead us effectively nowhere. The real issue is the eurozone and how we might relate to it. And it is a very big issue indeed. This might mean that no satisfactory solution can be found from within the EU. This is what we need to look at when as they say the results are in. This might mean that the best or least worst option is to leave but remain in the EEA and build up a relationship from there. This in my view will be little different from now and it will still leave us having to deal with a large continental wide country right on our doorstep making geoecopolitocal decisions we have no way to influence. This is what the public will be faced with whether you like it or not. What is on offer from Leave?
Nope. The trouble is that you make stuff up with no basis in fact and then ignore any evidence that demolishes your warped view - little things like treaties. You are thoroughly dishonest, continuously create straw man arguments and then get all upset when your lies are called for what they really are.
There are committed Europhiles on here who present what they believe to be a positive case for EU membership. I may disagree with them and may not share their vision but at least they are honest and deserve to be treated with respect. You on the other hand simply seem to exist to display the extent of willful ignorance and dishonesty. Which is why I treat you with such scorn.
Like I said, it is going to be a tough sell. Most Brits confuse the various European institutions. EEA membership means free movement of labour, and I cannot see that being a selling point to the Europhobes.
To many of us being in the EEA looks a lot like being in the EU, only without a seat at the top table.
Please, Doc, go and read up on the EEA and actually come to terms with what it is. Pretty, please.
Frankly you make yourself look a complete eegit, as do others, when you, and they, talk about joining the EEA as opposed to the EU.
I have read far more than the average British voter ever will on the subject!
If the Leavers want to advocate staying in the EEA (with its 4 freedoms and financial contributions) then it is going to be a very mixed message and tough sell.
Just my opinion, and not referring to you (I wouldn't know how you felt about the EU) but I think there is a certain intellectual fashion in appearing to be undecided/having no strong opinion about things in general, as it seems more reasoned than actually having an opinion, despite actually, and obviously, having a pretty firm opinion
Its a phoney tactic to make the actor seem measured and celebral rather than a shrieking fanatic
Sometimes it seems that you (and I mean you personally) think there are two groups: people who agree with you and people who do not. You may want to moderate your language to avoid pi**ing off people who are genuinely undecided. It's a football match in your eyes: there are no real neutrals.
You wish the country to leave the EU. You want others to vote for leave the EU. You won't win if just the die-hard leavers were the only ones to vote for leave. You need the undecideds. You need people like me.
Perhaps you should reconsider your original post in that light.
Nah its ok
I don't think myself important enough to shift one vote, although I must say a pet
I am not lying, I didn't know how you felt about the EU, I don't read every post on here, and you often write long posts about things I don't know anything about, like trains, engineering, Turkey etc so I skip them
Perhaps you might learn something if you didn't skip them.
Otherwise, learn the difference between 'the' and 'some'. That's not a misreading: it's what you wrote. You may not have written your intention, but that's your problem, not mine.
I'm glad I've struck upon one of your pet hates. What other ones do you have, just so I can avoid them?
Don't mind me, I wouldn't like to stop you writing whatever you want
You have to understand, and I don't know why you are cocking a deaf one to this, that I was referring to people that are pretending to be undecided. You have missed the joke and keep missing it. That certainly isn't my problem, its yours, as I couldn't give a toss what you think about it and you keep bringing it up
This is boring, forget it
But that's not what you wrote. It's not me having a deaf ear, it's you (wilfully, I assume) misunderstanding what you wrote.
As for the rest: get a grip on yourself.
Jesus, you have misunderstood something just let it go
As has happened before there are now other posters letting you know your error and trying to warn you off, just accept it and move on
But that's not what you wrote. It's not me having a deaf ear, it's you (wilfully, I assume) misunderstanding what you wrote.
As for the rest: get a grip on yourself.
Josias, you walked in effectively half way through a pub conversation and got the wrong end of the stick. The decent thing to do now it has been explained to you by a number of posters would be to let it drop.
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
I just have a feeling that neither Trump nor Carson will make it. I can even imagine a Cruz Rubio (or vice versa) ticket. A propos of nothing.
It was Carson Trump in Iowa in another poll today, Rubio and Cruz have certainly made some ground but it is difficult to see how much more they can squeeze and while Bush's voters may go to Rubio those from Cruz would go to Trump
Things will start to shake out once the primaries start, and in particularly the S.E.C. primary. I could easily be wrong and I have no rational argument to offer - just a feeling.
They certainly do at present. Harold Wilson noted that a week is a long time in politics. With a campaign as long as this one who knows what might happen before we're done.
Not sure what the point is of quoting a foreign newspaper about the US election - that's like quoting La Stampa about a UK election.
GOP voters seem in a similar mood to Labour voters in the summer, many thought Corbyn would lose eventually, in the end he won. Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard, he is not some random Brit making a passing comment on US politics and his comparison between Goldwater and Trump is apt. Indeed Ferguson is himself a Republican backer and was an adviser to McCain in 2008 and backed Romney in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
I know who he is - I have one of his books - nor am I criticizing his views.
But for a US election quote US media. For a UK election, quote UK media.
He lives in the US, he works in the US I don't see why he should automatically be disqualified, just as an American based in Briton may have a valid commentary on a UK election
Like I said, it is going to be a tough sell. Most Brits confuse the various European institutions. EEA membership means free movement of labour, and I cannot see that being a selling point to the Europhobes.
To many of us being in the EEA looks a lot like being in the EU, only without a seat at the top table.
Please, Doc, go and read up on the EEA and actually come to terms with what it is. Pretty, please.
Frankly you make yourself look a complete eegit, as do others, when you, and they, talk about joining the EEA as opposed to the EU.
I have read far more than the average British voter ever will on the subject!
If the Leavers want to advocate staying in the EEA (with its 4 freedoms and financial contributions) then it is going to be a very mixed message and tough sell.
The only hard sell will be immigration and that one is basically down to whether you think those in favour of curbing migration will vote for the EU membership where it absolutely will continue, or to Leave in which case there are a range of options one of which would mean it continues. Remain means there will be no change to migration policy, Leave means there might.
Obviously this is not an easy one for me because I do not entirely share the dislike of migration that so many seem to have. It means I have no easy answers for them. But in every other respect it is simple. Leaving the EU and joining EFTA (with or without EEA membership) would vastly improve the way our country is governed, vastly reduce the amount we have to pay and allow us to target funds to where they are needed in Britain based on our own public's opinion rather than leaving those decisions to an external Supra-national body.
I just have a feeling that neither Trump nor Carson will make it. I can even imagine a Cruz Rubio (or vice versa) ticket. A propos of nothing.
It was Carson Trump in Iowa in another poll today, Rubio and Cruz have certainly made some ground but it is difficult to see how much more they can squeeze and while Bush's voters may go to Rubio those from Cruz would go to Trump
Things will start to shake out once the primaries start, and in particularly the S.E.C. primary. I could easily be wrong and I have no rational argument to offer - just a feeling.
They certainly do at present. Harold Wilson noted that a week is a long time in politics. With a campaign as long as this one who knows what might happen before we're done.
Not sure what the point is of quoting a foreign newspaper about the US election - that's like quoting La Stampa about a UK election.
GOP voters seem in a similar mood to Labour voters in the summer, many thought Corbyn would lose eventually, in the end he won. Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard, he is not some random Brit making a passing comment on US politics and his comparison between Goldwater and Trump is apt. Indeed Ferguson is himself a Republican backer and was an adviser to McCain in 2008 and backed Romney in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
I know who he is - I have one of his books - nor am I criticizing his views.
But for a US election quote US media. For a UK election, quote UK media.
He lives in the US, he works in the US I don't see why he should automatically be disqualified, just as an American based in Briton may have a valid commentary on a UK election
I don't think that isam or Richard Tyndall have ever claimed to be undecided. FWIW, I am decided and unpersuadable (for Leave). Plenty are decided and unpersuadable on the Remain side. Fair enough. They have every right to hold their opinion.
Anyhoo, I come here not to mock the infinitely-expandible future that awaits a Brexit, where taxes are zero, growth is infinite, exports go up, prices are zero, all migrants leave, no child is unhugged and every granny gets a kiss goodnight.
Instead I come here to point out a curious phenomenon. I'm buttonpunching between the 1995 De Palma Mission: Impossible on Film 4, and the upcoming trailers for the 2016 X-Files revival, and I realise with horror that Gillian Anderson (English accent) and the younger Vanessa Redgrave have the same voice - they are voice twins
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
Yep. Worth a punt at that price.
I also think that Patterson at 33/1 and Redwood at 50/1 are reasonably good value. Neither have any career to lose in the current party and both are up for a scrap.
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
Personally I would reckon Portillo would be my personal favourite but he shows no signs of being interested. If not then one of the Labour EUsceptics.
I just have a feeling that neither Trump nor Carson will make it. I can even imagine a Cruz Rubio (or vice versa) ticket. A propos of nothing.
It was Carson Trump in Iowa in another poll today, Rubio and Cruz have certainly made some ground but it is difficult to see how much more they can squeeze and while Bush's voters may go to Rubio those from Cruz would go to Trump
Things will start to shake out once the primaries start, and in particularly the S.E.C. primary. I could easily be wrong and I have no rational argument to offer - just a feeling.
They certainly do at present. Harold Wilson noted that a week is a long time in politics. With a campaign as long as this one who knows what might happen before we're done.
Not sure what the point is of quoting a foreign newspaper about the US election - that's like quoting La Stampa about a UK election.
GOP voters seem in a similar mood to Labour voters in the summer, many thought Corbyn would lose eventually, in the end he won. Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard, he is not some random Brit making a passing comment on US politics and his comparison between Goldwater and Trump is apt. Indeed Ferguson is himself a Republican backer and was an adviser to McCain in 2008 and backed Romney in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
I know who he is - I have one of his books - nor am I criticizing his views.
But for a US election quote US media. For a UK election, quote UK media.
He lives in the US, he works in the US I don't see why he should automatically be disqualified, just as an American based in Briton may have a valid commentary on a UK election
@JakeReesMogg: Thrilled to see the "Corbyn Musical" is heading to the West End. Synchronised beards, high kicking Marxists and reds in lycra @CorbynMusical
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
Yep. Worth a punt at that price.
I also think that Patterson at 33/1 and Redwood at 50/1 are reasonably good value. Neither have any career to lose in the current party and both are up for a scrap.
If Redwood gets the job, it shows that Leave has been infiltrated by pro-EU forces.
But I agree that Patterson is excellent value at 33/1.
@NCPoliticsUK: Survation has a poll out for Unite... Unclear if it's normally weighted, by tabs imply 36/33/6/17 - closest since GE https://t.co/BywOZp1fXw
If true, still poor for lab. Or more to the point, the Tories were caught red handed attempting to take money away from he poorest paid in society. And labour still can't get a lead.
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
Hannan could wipe the floor with Cameron and Corbyn intellectually and is a brilliant speaker, however he is not really the type of figure to win over swing voters in the middle
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
Yep. Worth a punt at that price.
I also think that Patterson at 33/1 and Redwood at 50/1 are reasonably good value. Neither have any career to lose in the current party and both are up for a scrap.
I think Patterson has already upset too much of the very vocal animal rights crowd - and by that I don't mean the fanatics but just the normal people who oppose fox hunting and badger culls. It would be too much of a risk using him for that reason.
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
Personally I would reckon Portillo would be my personal favourite but he shows no signs of being interested. If not then one of the Labour EUsceptics.
Portillo would be very interesting. But, as you say, I think he has left politics for ever.
I don't find Kate Hoey to be particularly convincing (in general, not on the EU specifically). Who else from the Labour side do you rate?
@NCPoliticsUK: Survation has a poll out for Unite... Unclear if it's normally weighted, by tabs imply 36/33/6/17 - closest since GE https://t.co/BywOZp1fXw
If true, still poor for lab. Or more to the point, the Tories were caught red handed attempting to take money away from he poorest paid in society. And labour still can't get a lead.
Biggest move from UKIP, if they are on 17% that is up 4% on the general election (33% for Labour is still below the 34% they got with Mori)
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
Personally I would reckon Portillo would be my personal favourite but he shows no signs of being interested. If not then one of the Labour EUsceptics.
Portillo would be very interesting. But, as you say, I think he has left politics for ever.
I don't find Kate Hoey to be particularly convincing (in general, not on the EU specifically). Who else from the Labour side do you rate?
Frank Field would be an obvious choice for me although it is only very recently that he appears to have moved from a position of reform from within to possible Brexit so I am not convinced he would be committed to the idea.
John Cryer and Kelvin Hopkins from LESC would both be able to give a good left wing slant to the campaign which would widen support considerably.
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
Yep. Worth a punt at that price.
I also think that Patterson at 33/1 and Redwood at 50/1 are reasonably good value. Neither have any career to lose in the current party and both are up for a scrap.
If Redwood gets the job, it shows that Leave has been infiltrated by pro-EU forces.
But I agree that Patterson is excellent value at 33/1.
Has JR made pro EU comments? I don't follow him that closely.
I've said it before and I'll says it again. Ed Balls is the man: combative, euro-sceptic, not constrained by being an MP, sufficiently removed from the less appealing Labour sects (Blairites and Corbynists), serious economic and academic background, media skills, long political experience... What's not to like?
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
Yep. Worth a punt at that price.
I also think that Patterson at 33/1 and Redwood at 50/1 are reasonably good value. Neither have any career to lose in the current party and both are up for a scrap.
If Redwood gets the job, it shows that Leave has been infiltrated by pro-EU forces.
But I agree that Patterson is excellent value at 33/1.
Has JR made pro EU comments? I don't follow him that closely.
I was suggesting that JR would be monumentally unappealing to 83% of the electorate.
I've said it before and I'll says it again. Ed Balls is the man: combative, euro-sceptic, not constrained by being an MP, sufficiently removed from the less appealing Labour sects (Blairites and Corbynists), serious economic and academic background, media skills, long political experience... What's not to like?
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe
Back him at 50/1.
Yep. Worth a punt at that price.
I also think that Patterson at 33/1 and Redwood at 50/1 are reasonably good value. Neither have any career to lose in the current party and both are up for a scrap.
If Redwood gets the job, it shows that Leave has been infiltrated by pro-EU forces.
But I agree that Patterson is excellent value at 33/1.
Has JR made pro EU comments? I don't follow him that closely.
I was suggesting that JR would be monumentally unappealing to 83% of the electorate.
I suspect that you are correct. The Leave campaigners are the selectorate here though. They may well pick a Jezza who appeals to the hardliners rather than someone who appeals to the undecided middle.
The centrist wing of the Tories, the Centrist wing of Labour, the LDs and Scot Nats are pretty much all in the Remain camp. The Leavers comprise the kippers, Tory rightwingers with a seasoning of Trots. The Leavers leader will be a kipper (and Farage is not noted for deferring to others) or a Tory Euro-phobe.
Mr Tyndall, you offer nothing. I can see a reason for us being in the EEA, but I'm not fooled its going to be a nirvana. And I see us being outside a massive and powerful continental wide country on our doorstep. I might vote to leave the EU if the result of negotiations meant we could not get some satisfaction about how we can live with the eurozone from within it. But what in the end do Leavers offer in that circumstance? Do they say we would definitely ignore the EU single market? Do they promise continued EU leading levels of inward investment?
Josias, you walked in effectively half way through a pub conversation and got the wrong end of the stick. The decent thing to do now it has been explained to you by a number of posters would be to let it drop.
I read the thread, and I understand what was said. I just don't like being grouped by iSam with people who he sees as being disingenuous.
If he is willing to say there are many undecideds on here who are genuinely undecided, then that's fine. But it's not what he wrote. And it seems not what he thinks either.
Josias, you walked in effectively half way through a pub conversation and got the wrong end of the stick. The decent thing to do now it has been explained to you by a number of posters would be to let it drop.
I read the thread, and I understand what was said. I just don't like being grouped by iSam with people who he sees as being disingenuous.
If he is willing to say there are many undecideds on here who are genuinely undecided, then that's fine. But it's not what he wrote. And it seems not what he thinks either.
Jesus, you have misunderstood something just let it go
As has happened before there are now other posters letting you know your error and trying to warn you off, just accept it and move on
How have I misunderstood what you wrote? You said: "The undecideds must be doing the criticism of LEAVE this year and criticism of REMAIN next"
I'm an undecided (although you evidently don't read PB enough to realise that, despite my having mentioned it enough times to possibly bore everyone), yet hopefully I don't fit your stupid wording.
This isn't a football match: the teams have not been decided. It's perfectly possible to be a genuine undecided, even if you don't believe that's the case. If it makes you happy to believe the 'undecideds' feel that way, that's your problem, not theirs.
Josias, you walked in effectively half way through a pub conversation and got the wrong end of the stick. The decent thing to do now it has been explained to you by a number of posters would be to let it drop.
I read the thread, and I understand what was said. I just don't like being grouped by iSam with people who he sees as being disingenuous.
If he is willing to say there are many undecideds on here who are genuinely undecided, then that's fine. But it's not what he wrote. And it seems not what he thinks either.
Get over yourself I wasnt talking about you
Then it's a shame you didn't put 'some of the ...' at the beginning, instead of putting everyone into the same group. Mind you, that's probably what you think.
Besides, I think your whole argument is bogus, and that you're so much in the 'leave' camp that you think that anyone giving even a slightly contrary view must be a hard-and-fast remainer.
Josias, you walked in effectively half way through a pub conversation and got the wrong end of the stick. The decent thing to do now it has been explained to you by a number of posters would be to let it drop.
I read the thread, and I understand what was said. I just don't like being grouped by iSam with people who he sees as being disingenuous.
If he is willing to say there are many undecideds on here who are genuinely undecided, then that's fine. But it's not what he wrote. And it seems not what he thinks either.
Get over yourself I wasnt talking about you
Then it's a shame you didn't put 'some of the ...' at the beginning, instead of putting everyone into the same group. Mind you, that's probably what you think.
Besides, I think your whole argument is bogus, and that you're so much in the 'leave' camp that you think that anyone giving even a slightly contrary view must be a hard-and-fast remainer.
It was a joke, not at your expense, that you have misunderstood.. for gods sake let it go
Josias, you walked in effectively half way through a pub conversation and got the wrong end of the stick. The decent thing to do now it has been explained to you by a number of posters would be to let it drop.
I read the thread, and I understand what was said. I just don't like being grouped by iSam with people who he sees as being disingenuous.
If he is willing to say there are many undecideds on here who are genuinely undecided, then that's fine. But it's not what he wrote. And it seems not what he thinks either.
Get over yourself I wasnt talking about you
Then it's a shame you didn't put 'some of the ...' at the beginning, instead of putting everyone into the same group. Mind you, that's probably what you think.
Besides, I think your whole argument is bogus, and that you're so much in the 'leave' camp that you think that anyone giving even a slightly contrary view must be a hard-and-fast remainer.
It was a joke, not at your expense, that you have misunderstood.. for gods sake let it go
You ask me to let it go, yet you continue by posting an attack on me on the next thread? Perhaps you're the one who needs to let it go ...
What shall we Christen these under-cover remainers? The 'in'-decided? Faux-pen minded?
Particularly annoying when the debate gets slightly above warm and they pull out their trump card - 'I'm the person you desperately need to convince, and you're putting me off voting leave'. Yes ok then, decide how you want to vote in the biggest constitutional decision of our lifetime on the basis someone was beathtly to you on a message board.
Comments
Right - way toooooo high
Donald Trump 26% [28%]
Ben Carson 16% [17%]
Marco Rubio 13% [4%]
John Kasich 11% [11%]
Ted Cruz 9% [8%]
Jeb Bush 7% [7%]
Chris Christie 5% [2%]
Carly Fiorina 5% [7%]
Rand Paul 3% [4%]
Mike Huckabee 1% [1%]
Jim Gilmore 0% [0%]
Lindsey Graham 0% [1%]
Bobby Jindal 0% [0%]
George Pataki 0% [1%]
Rick Santorum 0% [1%]
Undecided 4% [7%]
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/5713f5c9-e6a9-4f65-a09a-2f678233a44a.pdf
I'll get my coat....
I said a minute ago that nobody here had heard of Jimmy Savile, but look what I just found....
http://gawker.com/jeb-bush-borrowed-his-new-slogan-from-englands-most-not-1740064613
“Marco Rubio will not win. Weak on illegal immigration, strong on amnesty and has the appearance to killers of the world as a “lightweight”
This is what ought to turn everyone against the EU if we are not able to effectively semi detached ourselves from it.
The EEA might well be a plausible alternative, but it will be very little different from now and probably not much different from any just not quite acceptable compromise we might have gotten to that did not quite keep us in the EU.
Sometimes it seems that you (and I mean you personally) think there are two groups: people who agree with you and people who do not. You may want to moderate your language to avoid pi**ing off people who are genuinely undecided. It's a football match in your eyes: there are no real neutrals.
You wish the country to leave the EU. You want others to vote for leave the EU. You won't win if just the die-hard leavers were the only ones to vote for leave. You need the undecideds. You need people like me.
Perhaps you should reconsider your original post in that light.
To many of us being in the EEA looks a lot like being in the EU, only without a seat at the top table.
Good things about the EU? People like the late Brittan and Mandelson would tell you about how the press talk about how different the EU is to Britain and our values, but they have actually got it wrong, it is the UK that have won the intellectual battles. It is the neo liberal, anglo saxon, thatcherite attitude to enterprise and the economy which dominates the operation of the Single Market.
Not sure on that one, however I do see that it was bullying from the EEC which has forced us to clean up our environment in the 90s. Our air quality has not been so clean since the industrial revolution as a result.
Might we have done it ourselves? Possibly.
I don't think myself important enough to shift one vote, although I must say a pet hate is "You need people like me..." but there you go
As Richard Tyndall has tried to explain, I was making a snide remark about people who pretend to be undecided but instinctively bat for REMAIN... it was a bit of a joke which, and we have been here before, you have misread and now wont let go of
I am not lying, I didn't know how you felt about the EU, I don't read every post on here, and you often write long posts about things I don't know anything about, like trains, engineering, Turkey etc so I skip them
But really this is a sterile discussion when we reduce ourselves to who has copyright on slogans. Is everyone coincidentally with the name Saville to be ridiculed??? And I think 'ending badly' is a pretty poor and trite misnomer for what Saville was al!owed to get away with.
PB can surely do better than this
Frankly you make yourself look a complete eegit, as do others, when you, and they, talk about joining the EEA as opposed to the EU.
Otherwise, learn the difference between 'the' and 'some'. That's not a misreading: it's what you wrote. You may not have written your intention, but that's your problem, not mine.
I'm glad I've struck upon one of your pet hates. What other ones do you have, just so I can avoid them?
Of course it's out there, but so what? Do we need to join in? Is it so difficult to be a bit better than... Journalists!!!?
Anyway I am defeating my object, but I think a bit more decorum might have been in order.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/NiallFerguson/article1626553.ece
You have to understand, and I don't know why you are cocking a deaf one to this, that I was referring to people that are pretending to be undecided. You have missed the joke and keep missing it. That certainly isn't my problem, its yours, as I couldn't give a toss what you think about it and you keep bringing it up
This is boring, forget it
It's like smoking in pubs: some countries (e.g. Scotland) led the way, and others followed when they saw how well it had (or had not) worked. And it works the other way: Euro NCAP is heavily based upon the UK scheme, which in turn was influenced by US and Antipodean schemes.
Sometimes ideas are good whoever has them, and sometimes good ideas sprout independently of each other because they are good ideas.
Not sure what the point is of quoting a foreign newspaper about the US election - that's like quoting La Stampa about a UK election.
Ooooops.
Trouble with you and your ilk is you will not admit to the shortcomings. What I see is a vast amount of sound and fury which will cause all sorts of divisions and will lead us effectively nowhere.
The real issue is the eurozone and how we might relate to it. And it is a very big issue indeed.
This might mean that no satisfactory solution can be found from within the EU. This is what we need to look at when as they say the results are in.
This might mean that the best or least worst option is to leave but remain in the EEA and build up a relationship from there. This in my view will be little different from now and it will still leave us having to deal with a large continental wide country right on our doorstep making geoecopolitocal decisions we have no way to influence.
This is what the public will be faced with whether you like it or not. What is on offer from Leave?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
Anyhoo, I come here not to mock the infinitely-expandible future that awaits a Brexit, where taxes are zero, growth is infinite, exports go up, prices are zero, all migrants leave, no child is unhugged and every granny gets a kiss goodnight.
Instead I come here to point out a curious phenomenon. I'm buttonpunching between the 1995 De Palma Mission: Impossible on Film 4, and the upcoming trailers for the 2016 X-Files revival, and I realise with horror that Gillian Anderson (English accent) and the younger Vanessa Redgrave have the same voice - they are voice twins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJmq0LoVWRQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqsGygpvCY8
As for the rest: get a grip on yourself.
Look, I'm not isam's spokesperson (honest!), but if you had wasted as much of your day reading pb.com as I have today, you would know that he was referring to certain posters who he perceives to be fake "undecideds" and not to all who say they are, as yet, undecided. In other words, he wasn't referring to you (or at least I don't believe so).
I like your engineering posts. My daughter is considering becoming an engineer, but is unclear what engineers actually do on a day to day basis. Trains I don't find so interesting.
But for a US election quote US media. For a UK election, quote UK media.
There are committed Europhiles on here who present what they believe to be a positive case for EU membership. I may disagree with them and may not share their vision but at least they are honest and deserve to be treated with respect. You on the other hand simply seem to exist to display the extent of willful ignorance and dishonesty. Which is why I treat you with such scorn.
If the Leavers want to advocate staying in the EEA (with its 4 freedoms and financial contributions) then it is going to be a very mixed message and tough sell.
As has happened before there are now other posters letting you know your error and trying to warn you off, just accept it and move on
As for the rest: get a grip on yourself.
Josias, you walked in effectively half way through a pub conversation and got the wrong end of the stick. The decent thing to do now it has been explained to you by a number of posters would be to let it drop.
If the politician who leads "Out" is from the Conservative Party then they have to be a gambler by nature. If they win, then they are in an excellent position to take over from David Cameron. However, if they lose - especially if they take on Cameron directly during the campaign, perhaps effectively calling him a liar - then their political career, in Cameron's Conservatives, at least, is over.
I think this means it is unlikely Philip Hammond will have the role. I just don't think he's that kind of gambler.
Now, the person with least to lose and most to gain is Boris. But there's a problem with Boris' candidacy: notably that he's been pretty pro-EU when talking to City audiences during his time as Mayor. If he runs Leave, then he could (rightly) be called an opportunistic chancer.
It is extremely unlikely it will be James Dyson. Not only is he not a politician, but if you read the Daily Mail article where he rails against the EU for its energy rules on vacuum cleaners, he praises the free movement of labour. That makes him unacceptable to much of the Leave side.
I would also suggest it will not be Lord Lawson. He's old and somewhat erratic. And while I enjoy his global warming commentary, he will tar the "Leave" side by associating it with lots of other things.
Nigel Farage wants the job, and is extremely popular with a lot of "Outers". However, he is an extremely divisive figure. Furthermore, it is likely that if he were to be the face of "Out", then the destination of "Out" would be moved from EEA to something much more distant. And that - I believe - would make "In" a much more likely outcome from the referendum.
If it is going to be a Conservative, then I'd reckon it would be May, Patterson, or (where my money would be going) Dan Hannan.
Hannan is not a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party and can be a bit more "rough" with David Cameron than an MP could. He is insightful, interesting, and articulate. And he is no threat to Eurosceptics in the cabinet.
Back him at 50/1.
I can only think of one person I regard as fake undecided, and I think said poster is actually an Outter :-)
Obviously this is not an easy one for me because I do not entirely share the dislike of migration that so many seem to have. It means I have no easy answers for them. But in every other respect it is simple. Leaving the EU and joining EFTA (with or without EEA membership) would vastly improve the way our country is governed, vastly reduce the amount we have to pay and allow us to target funds to where they are needed in Britain based on our own public's opinion rather than leaving those decisions to an external Supra-national body.
I also think that Patterson at 33/1 and Redwood at 50/1 are reasonably good value. Neither have any career to lose in the current party and both are up for a scrap.
@CorbynMusical
But I agree that Patterson is excellent value at 33/1.
I don't find Kate Hoey to be particularly convincing (in general, not on the EU specifically). Who else from the Labour side do you rate?
John Cryer and Kelvin Hopkins from LESC would both be able to give a good left wing slant to the campaign which would widen support considerably.
The 1939 Register, taken on the outbreak of WWII, was released today.
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/1939register
Since the 1931 and 1941 censuses are missing, this is a big deal...
The centrist wing of the Tories, the Centrist wing of Labour, the LDs and Scot Nats are pretty much all in the Remain camp. The Leavers comprise the kippers, Tory rightwingers with a seasoning of Trots. The Leavers leader will be a kipper (and Farage is not noted for deferring to others) or a Tory Euro-phobe.
I can see a reason for us being in the EEA, but I'm not fooled its going to be a nirvana. And I see us being outside a massive and powerful continental wide country on our doorstep.
I might vote to leave the EU if the result of negotiations meant we could not get some satisfaction about how we can live with the eurozone from within it.
But what in the end do Leavers offer in that circumstance? Do they say we would definitely ignore the EU single market? Do they promise continued EU leading levels of inward investment?
If he is willing to say there are many undecideds on here who are genuinely undecided, then that's fine. But it's not what he wrote. And it seems not what he thinks either.
I'm an undecided (although you evidently don't read PB enough to realise that, despite my having mentioned it enough times to possibly bore everyone), yet hopefully I don't fit your stupid wording.
This isn't a football match: the teams have not been decided. It's perfectly possible to be a genuine undecided, even if you don't believe that's the case. If it makes you happy to believe the 'undecideds' feel that way, that's your problem, not theirs.
Besides, I think your whole argument is bogus, and that you're so much in the 'leave' camp that you think that anyone giving even a slightly contrary view must be a hard-and-fast remainer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmauUbBKXII
Particularly annoying when the debate gets slightly above warm and they pull out their trump card - 'I'm the person you desperately need to convince, and you're putting me off voting leave'. Yes ok then, decide how you want to vote in the biggest constitutional decision of our lifetime on the basis someone was beathtly to you on a message board.
(No offence to those genuinely on the fence)