Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
I think as John Curtice said, the only way round it is to have the polls conducted over a longer period of time, stick to the people who were originally randomly selected to be part of the survey, and just keep phoning them over and over again until they damn well agree to take part in the survey. One of the big problems last time apparently was that, rationally enough, the pollsters gave up on someone if they didn't agree to take part in the poll on the first attempt, and the pollsters would then move onto someone else to fill the sample - but, according to Curtice, moving onto someone else who WAS willing to take part in the survey on the first attempt itself made them more likely to be a Labour supporter, even if purely in demographic terms they were similar to the person who refused to take part.
Of course, the problem with having less polls conducted over longer periods is that it would, presumably, be much less profitable for the polling companies (more costs by repeatedly phoning the same people, less output).
Also, if the real problem with the polls is that they have been over-surveying Mr & Mrs Guardian (judging by the fact that they overestimated the Lib Dems in 2010 when they were the Guardianista darlings, and overestimated Labour in 2015), would that not suggest the polls are more likely to be overestimating the Remain vote?
Online polls overstate Labour and overstate EU opposition - so we conclude they massively oversample Labour Leavers?
It's probably not quite as simple as to expect a correlation between a polling method being favourable to Labour and being favourable to Remain. But I agree that it is unexpected.
(e) Compilations of items of information that are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that: (1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and (2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information.
Even if every single email was Protectively Marked Unclassified, the whole could itself attract a higher level of Protective Marking
1) Clinton has committed criminal offenses - I can't see how that can be argued away. 2) She and her partisans will/do argue that they are just minor crimes. 3) Lesser folk have been sent to jail for doing less. 4) She is the front runner for the Democratic ticket. 5) The vengeance from her political machine if she goes down/misses her chance will be apocalyptic.
Add those together - who knows what will happen.... I could see it dragging along until Obama issues some kind of pardon.
Sorry to interrupt, but economic events are taking place and oil is crashing at a rate that if it continues for another month the price of it will reach 0$.
Yes, with the slight proviso that we don't know what the turnout will be in the EU referendum - that will be crucial on the day, and at least for a GE we know it's in a band of 60-75%.
Are the "don't knows" on the online pollsters hidden Remainers, who seem far fewer and more heavily for Remain on the phone, and will just default to the status quo on the day?
Or are the don't knows on the online polls actually just "non voters" on this issue, and phone pollsters are just picking up more of those motivated and politically engaged to answer EU referendum questions ?
''Sorry to interrupt, but economic events are taking place and oil is crashing at a rate that if it continues for another month the price of it will reach 0$.''
At which point the people of Britain will realise how much of what they pay in fuel goes in taxes.
Sorry to interrupt, but economic events are taking place and oil is crashing at a rate that if it continues for another month the price of it will reach 0$.
If we were Scottish or Saudi it might be of concern, otherwise just means cheap petrol
1) Clinton has committed criminal offenses - I can't see how that can be argued away. 2) She and her partisans will/do argue that they are just minor crimes. 3) Lesser folk have been sent to jail for doing less. 4) She is the front runner for the Democratic ticket. 5) The vengeance from her political machine if she goes down/misses her chance will be apocalyptic.
Add those together - who knows what will happen.... I could see it dragging along until Obama issues some kind of pardon.
I expect some lesser minion will end up in the slammer, Hillary will pay a fine and get a slapped wrist and the election will move on
''Sorry to interrupt, but economic events are taking place and oil is crashing at a rate that if it continues for another month the price of it will reach 0$.''
At which point the people of Britain will realise how much of what they pay in fuel goes in taxes.
Will Osborne pay back the windfall tax he levied on North Sea oil in 2011?
5) The vengeance from her political machine if she goes down/misses her chance will be apocalyptic.
The power of her political machine depends on the possibility that she will become President. If her chances start to evaporate she will become impotent very quickly.
Sorry to interrupt, but economic events are taking place and oil is crashing at a rate that if it continues for another month the price of it will reach 0$.
Sorry to interrupt, but economic events are taking place and oil is crashing at a rate that if it continues for another month the price of it will reach 0$.
Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Phone pollsters do ring mobiles too. They ask you for info about yourself to fill their quotas.
British judges have ruled that three Syrian teenagers and an adult in the Calais migrant camp can come to the UK immediately as they have siblings here.
Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Sorry to interrupt, but economic events are taking place and oil is crashing at a rate that if it continues for another month the price of it will reach 0$.
And yet some people are still worried about the prospect of fracking happening imminently
Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Phone pollsters do ring mobiles too. They ask you for info about yourself to fill their quotas.
Yes, with the slight proviso that we don't know what the turnout will be in the EU referendum - that will be crucial on the day, and at least for a GE we know it's in a band of 60-75%.
Are the "don't knows" on the online pollsters hidden Remainers, who seem far fewer and more heavily for Remain on the phone, and will just default to the status quo on the day?
Or are the don't knows on the online polls actually just "non voters" on this issue, and phone pollsters are just picking up more of those motivated and politically engaged to answer EU referendum questions ?
Personally, I think it's a bit of both.
Alistair's Law of EU Referendum Polling (ALEURP) to add Don't Knows to Remain on online polls and to Leave on phone polls.
Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Whose price on Betfair is more wrong - Rubio at ~ 3.6 or Bush at 10.0 ?
Bush. He's more toast than a fire in a Hovis factory.
I agree Bush's task looks enormous. At least Rubio leads the establishment pack, he could in theory benefit from transfers. (Not that I think he will.)
Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Phone pollsters do ring mobiles too. They ask you for info about yourself to fill their quotas.
They get told to bog off as well. TBH most of the cold calls I get on my mobile are about my non-existent PPI claim.
And these are the people that Corbyn wants to talk to.
There are no polite words to describe the contempt I have for him.
I suppose the options are talk, fight or leave them be, and at the moment policy is #3, which is not much better if any than #1
It's not much more effective in defeating them, but it is still better. But we and them are not going to be in a position for #1 until #2 happens and some really major changes occur that would make it viable.
Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Phone pollsters do ring mobiles too. They ask you for info about yourself to fill their quotas.
They get told to bog off as well. TBH most of the cold calls I get on my mobile are about my non-existent PPI claim.
I got phoned by someone claiming to be from the AA today about my accident.
(e) Compilations of items of information that are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that: (1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and (2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information.
Even if every single email was Protectively Marked Unclassified, the whole could itself attract a higher level of Protective Marking
This is the real killer
PART 3 -- DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING
Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
(2) the originator's current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.
(c) The Director of National Intelligence (or, if delegated by the Director of National Intelligence, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence) may, with respect to the Intelligence Community, after consultation with the head of the originating Intelligence Community element or department, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence relating to intelligence sources, methods, or activities.
Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Phrases like "we will respond in due course", "committed to seeing reform through", and "not yet made a final decision" leap out to me. But is she throwing the hounds off the scent, or clearing the decks?
I also find this parliamentary sketch interesting from Quentin Letts last week:
"In the House yesterday her Department was asked by Eurosceptic Tory MP Peter Bone (Wellingborough) what it might do with the billions of pounds we could save if we quit the EU. Mrs May, spoken of by some (probably wrongly) as a Eurosceptic, let one of her junior ministers cough up a non-answer.
But while the matter was under discussion she twiddled frantically with her ballpoint pen. Her face became twisted, as though by indigestion. She blinked, flinched, looked suddenly a bag of twitches."
It obviously won't be Boris. It won't be IDS or Whittingdale. If it's Grayling or Villiers, Leave will lose. Patel is not the 'senior' cabinet minister alluded to by Lord Lawson.
So if Leave are serious it's Javid or May. If they're ramping, it's Grayling or Villiers.
Personally, I think May hasn't yet made her mind up - she knows there are big consequences either way - but is seriously thinking about it and readying herself by doing what she can in office, now, to give herself options.
Volunteering to participate in an online poll is a weird thing to do. It's quite a leap of faith to then say this group is representative of the population as a whole.
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Also, if the real problem with the polls is that they have been over-surveying Mr & Mrs Guardian (judging by the fact that they overestimated the Lib Dems in 2010 when they were the Guardianista darlings, and overestimated Labour in 2015), would that not suggest the polls are more likely to be overestimating the Remain vote?
There are some rumours going around that Trump has got another 2 big names to endorse him before Iowa. I'm only mentioning them because just a few moments ago Bob (the Bore) Dole came out of the dead:
"“I question his allegiance to the party,” Mr. Dole said of Mr. Cruz. “I don’t know how often you’ve heard him say the word ‘Republican’ — not very often.” Instead, Mr. Cruz uses the word “conservative,” Mr. Dole said, before offering up a different word for Mr. Cruz: “extremist.” '
"The only person who could stop Mr. Cruz from capturing the nomination? “I think it’s Trump,” Mr. Dole said, adding that Mr. Trump was “gaining a little.” "
The pattern is similar with Branstad yesterday, Trump is attracting a lot of allies just because they hate Cruz more than Trump.
There are some rumours going around that Trump has got another 2 big names to endorse him before Iowa.
FOLLOWING the appointment of Sarah Palin as War, Donald Trump is still looking for an additional two horsemen before he is ready to ride.
The billionaire, who showed off his solid-gold scythe to cheering crowds begging for death yesterday, has admitted he is still missing key apocalyptic personnel.
There are some rumours going around that Trump has got another 2 big names to endorse him before Iowa. I'm only mentioning them because just a few moments ago Bob (the Bore) Dole came out of the dead:
"“I question his allegiance to the party,” Mr. Dole said of Mr. Cruz. “I don’t know how often you’ve heard him say the word ‘Republican’ — not very often.” Instead, Mr. Cruz uses the word “conservative,” Mr. Dole said, before offering up a different word for Mr. Cruz: “extremist.” '
"The only person who could stop Mr. Cruz from capturing the nomination? “I think it’s Trump,” Mr. Dole said, adding that Mr. Trump was “gaining a little.” "
The pattern is similar with Branstad yesterday, Trump is attracting a lot of allies just because they hate Cruz more than Trump.
What spectacular implicit damning with faint praise: Trump would fare better than delivering cataclysmic losses.
@lewis_goodall: David Owen and Shirley Williams tell me and @zachjournalism that there may be a new SDP style Labour split, watch #newsnight for more!
Hmm. Clearly there *may*. If it was actually happening, would Owen or Williams be in the know?
They will probably found it, with Owen as the proud leader of the "new" SDP. As fresh as 40 year canned food, he probably read this and thought "yeap, the SDP is still edible" :
And these are the people that Corbyn wants to talk to.
There are no polite words to describe the contempt I have for him.
I suppose the options are talk, fight or leave them be, and at the moment policy is #3, which is not much better if any than #1
It's not much more effective in defeating them, but it is still better. But we and them are not going to be in a position for #1 until #2 happens and some really major changes occur that would make it viable.
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies went for in WW2 (I know Godwin's Law and all that but don't care). IS need to be utterly defeated. So utterly defeated that anyone else with a fancy to set up another Al-Qaeda / IS / son of IS franchise decides it's not worth it. And the very idea of doing what these utter toads have been doing is viewed with the same horror, disdain and contempt by ordinary Arabs / Persians / Muslims as Europeans viewed - and still view - Fascism and Nazism today.
Seems to me referenda are sui generis, and so extrapolation of anything to do with General Elections or Locals is fraught with possibilities of egg on face.
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Looking back at General Elections final poll predictions overstated Labour in relation to the Tories in – 1959 – 1966 – 1970 – Oct 1974 – 1979 – 1987 – 1992 – 1997 – 2001 – 2005 – 2015. Labour was understated in relation to the Tories in – Feb 1974 – 1983. The Labour – Tory gap was much as predicted in – 1964 – 2010. (2005 was not far out either) Some allowance probably has to be made for the fact that several of the elections were landslides in the making so that by Polling Day the result appeared to have become a foregone conclusion – perhaps discouraging some supporters of the party apparently miles ahead from turning out. This would apply to -1966 – maybe Oct 1974 where polls suggested a big Labour win – 1983 – 1997 – 2001.
And these are the people that Corbyn wants to talk to.
There are no polite words to describe the contempt I have for him.
I suppose the options are talk, fight or leave them be, and at the moment policy is #3, which is not much better if any than #1
It's not much more effective in defeating them, but it is still better. But we and them are not going to be in a position for #1 until #2 happens and some really major changes occur that would make it viable.
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies went for in WW2 (I know Godwin's Law and all that but don't care). IS need to be utterly defeated. So utterly defeated that anyone else with a fancy to set up another Al-Qaeda / IS / son of IS franchise decides it's not worth it. And the very idea of doing what these utter toads have been doing is viewed with the same horror, disdain and contempt by ordinary Arabs / Persians / Muslims as Europeans viewed - and still view - Fascism and Nazism today.
I agree with you - however if we are ever to talk to them, it has to be after they have transmogrified into something else, essentially, by being attacked until they have no choice, and we could theoretically think they could be dealt with in a way other than violence. It was a thought experiment only.
Wishing to resolve matters by being open to talking is a nice theoretical exercise, but is not possible at the current time with IS, nor does it seem likely at present it ever will be.
Fascinating today to watch Bloomberg and CNBC interviewing the great and the good at Davos as the markets collapse around their collective ears. Oil at $27 a barrel - so much for fracking in the UK (though if oil has been $150 a barrel before, it could be again one day).
On the issue of a Labour schism, the 1981 split was many years in the making (it arguably began with the rows between Gaitskell and the party over disarmament in the 1950s) so the question then becomes could a future split be personal but that requires a clear alternative personality to challenge Corbyn (akin to Hedeltine vs Thatcher post 1986 but much worse).
How many Councillors and activists could a new Labour grouping have ? Here in Newham there are 60 Labour Councillors and the Mayor - would they all stay "loyal" or as happened with Respect, would a few split away ? As I recall, there was no single electoral event which prefaced the 1981 schism (bar the 1979 defeat)
On a related, I've often wondered how many other Labour MPs and activists would have defected had Tony Benn won the Deputy Leadership election later that year.
And these are the people that Corbyn wants to talk to.
There are no polite words to describe the contempt I have for him.
I suppose the options are talk, fight or leave them be, and at the moment policy is #3, which is not much better if any than #1
It's not much more effective in defeating them, but it is still better. But we and them are not going to be in a position for #1 until #2 happens and some really major changes occur that would make it viable.
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies went for in WW2 (I know Godwin's Law and all that but don't care). IS need to be utterly defeated. So utterly defeated that anyone else with a fancy to set up another Al-Qaeda / IS / son of IS franchise decides it's not worth it. And the very idea of doing what these utter toads have been doing is viewed with the same horror, disdain and contempt by ordinary Arabs / Persians / Muslims as Europeans viewed - and still view - Fascism and Nazism today.
I'm leaning between extermination and unconditional surrender for ISIS. The biggest problem is how to treat the local population that is the main supplier of ISIS, and groups like ISIS, with men.
Religion cannot be defeated as easily as a political party or ideology, for once you can't kill or expose it's leader or founder since they are abstract creations.
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Yup - associating the Remain campaign with banks and with one particularly loathed Squid-like US bank is brilliant PR. Really brilliant.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies went for in WW2 (I know Godwin's Law and all that but don't care). IS need to be utterly defeated. So utterly defeated that anyone else with a fancy to set up another Al-Qaeda / IS / son of IS franchise decides it's not worth it. And the very idea of doing what these utter toads have been doing is viewed with the same horror, disdain and contempt by ordinary Arabs / Persians / Muslims as Europeans viewed - and still view - Fascism and Nazism today.
I entirely agree. I suspect that we won't summon up the resolve to make that happen until IS has grown a lot stronger.
And these are the people that Corbyn wants to talk to.
There are no polite words to describe the contempt I have for him.
I suppose the options are talk, fight or leave them be, and at the moment policy is #3, which is not much better if any than #1
It's not much more effective in defeating them, but it is still better. But we and them are not going to be in a position for #1 until #2 happens and some really major changes occur that would make it viable.
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies went for in WW2 (I know Godwin's Law and all that but don't care). IS need to be utterly defeated. So utterly defeated that anyone else with a fancy to set up another Al-Qaeda / IS / son of IS franchise decides it's not worth it. And the very idea of doing what these utter toads have been doing is viewed with the same horror, disdain and contempt by ordinary Arabs / Persians / Muslims as Europeans viewed - and still view - Fascism and Nazism today.
Unconditional surrender was possible as an aim against a recognised state-regime. What does that mean in the case of ISIL? Sure, their pseudo-state can be annihilated (as long as the Syrian and Iraqi governments permit it), but does it imply going after individual supporters after that? In Germany and Austria, most Nazis were left to crawl back into society.
And these are the people that Corbyn wants to talk to.
There are no polite words to describe the contempt I have for him.
I suppose the options are talk, fight or leave them be, and at the moment policy is #3, which is not much better if any than #1
It's not much more effective in defeating them, but it is still better. But we and them are not going to be in a position for #1 until #2 happens and some really major changes occur that would make it viable.
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies went for in WW2 (I know Godwin's Law and all that but don't care). IS need to be utterly defeated. So utterly defeated that anyone else with a fancy to set up another Al-Qaeda / IS / son of IS franchise decides it's not worth it. And the very idea of doing what these utter toads have been doing is viewed with the same horror, disdain and contempt by ordinary Arabs / Persians / Muslims as Europeans viewed - and still view - Fascism and Nazism today.
I'm leaning between extermination and unconditional surrender for ISIS. The biggest problem is how to treat the local population that is the main supplier of ISIS, and groups like ISIS, with men.
Religion cannot be defeated as easily as a political party or ideology, for once you can't kill or expose it's leader or founder since they are abstract creations.
Well we had the same issue in 1945, no. The population need to understand what an appalling black hole of misery IS leads them to and that there is a better alternative.
But to be honest I would be content with just persuading the morons in this country who supply IS with men and women and support and justification to stop doing so, though it seems that we're going to have to deal with more than disaffected youth (and yes I am looking at you Corbyn and your idiot friends).
Religion cannot be defeated but it can be made to change and adapt. How else did Christianity survive and continue to prosper despite its own bloodthirsty episodes?
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Yup - associating the Remain campaign with banks and with one particularly loathed Squid-like US bank is brilliant PR. Really brilliant.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
Guy Verhofstadt has apparently agreed to come to the UK to argue the case for remaining in the EU.
I suppose the implication of this thread's header is that Remain is going to win the EU referendum easily because the phone polling puts them miles ahead whereas it's the phone polls that have the race as a close contest.
Fascinating today to watch Bloomberg and CNBC interviewing the great and the good at Davos as the markets collapse around their collective ears. Oil at $27 a barrel - so much for fracking in the UK (though if oil has been $150 a barrel before, it could be again one day).
On the issue of a Labour schism, the 1981 split was many years in the making (it arguably began with the rows between Gaitskell and the party over disarmament in the 1950s) so the question then becomes could a future split be personal but that requires a clear alternative personality to challenge Corbyn (akin to Hedeltine vs Thatcher post 1986 but much worse).
How many Councillors and activists could a new Labour grouping have ? Here in Newham there are 60 Labour Councillors and the Mayor - would they all stay "loyal" or as happened with Respect, would a few split away ? As I recall, there was no single electoral event which prefaced the 1981 schism (bar the 1979 defeat)
On a related, I've often wondered how many other Labour MPs and activists would have defected had Tony Benn won the Deputy Leadership election later that year.
The electoral event that prompted the schism was Labour's special conference vote.
Peter Mandelson in his autobiography says that had Benn beaten Healey for the deputy leadership, he and many more MPs would have followed Owen, Jenkins and co into the SDP; that there was a sense in Brighton (where the 1981 conference was) that many delegates hadn't unpacked their bags and were waiting on the result as to what to do next.
I don't know how much poetic licence there is in that - the deputy leadership campaign, for all its bitterness, didn't really matter that much; deputies never do. On the other hand, it was an extremely symbolic moment and in retrospect marked the high point of the left and the turning of the tide.
And these are the people that Corbyn wants to talk to.
There are no polite words to describe the contempt I have for him.
I suppose the options are talk, fight or leave them be, and at the moment policy is #3, which is not much better if any than #1
It's not much more effective in defeating them, but it is still better. But we and them are not going to be in a position for #1 until #2 happens and some really major changes occur that would make it viable.
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies went for in WW2 (I know Godwin's Law and all that but don't care). IS need to be utterly defeated. So utterly defeated that anyone else with a fancy to set up another Al-Qaeda / IS / son of IS franchise decides it's not worth it. And the very idea of doing what these utter toads have been doing is viewed with the same horror, disdain and contempt by ordinary Arabs / Persians / Muslims as Europeans viewed - and still view - Fascism and Nazism today.
Unconditional surrender was possible as an aim against a recognised state-regime. What does that mean in the case of ISIL? Sure, their pseudo-state can be annihilated (as long as the Syrian and Iraqi governments permit it), but does it imply going after individual supporters after that? In Germany and Austria, most Nazis were left to crawl back into society.
Going after their most egregious and committed supporters: yes. Pour encourager les autres.
Going after everyone who maybe did not have a choice or who now realise the error of their ways. Maybe not. So long as what grows out of the ashes of what IS has destroyed is better and more hopeful then maybe that's the least worst option. But it is not me suffering under their yoke. I expect the Yazidis and Christians and Assyrians and Iraqis and Kurds and Syrians will have a view on this.
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Yup - associating the Remain campaign with banks and with one particularly loathed Squid-like US bank is brilliant PR. Really brilliant.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies went for in WW2 (I know Godwin's Law and all that but don't care). IS need to be utterly defeated. So utterly defeated that anyone else with a fancy to set up another Al-Qaeda / IS / son of IS franchise decides it's not worth it. And the very idea of doing what these utter toads have been doing is viewed with the same horror, disdain and contempt by ordinary Arabs / Persians / Muslims as Europeans viewed - and still view - Fascism and Nazism today.
I entirely agree. I suspect that we won't summon up the resolve to make that happen until IS has grown a lot stronger.
We won't summon up the resolve as a country when the main opposition party leader thinks that IS have "strong points".
It obviously won't be Boris. It won't be IDS or Whittingdale. If it's Grayling or Villiers, Leave will lose. Patel is not the 'senior' cabinet minister alluded to by Lord Lawson.
So if Leave are serious it's Javid or May. If they're ramping, it's Grayling or Villiers.
Personally, I think May hasn't yet made her mind up - she knows there are big consequences either way - but is seriously thinking about it and readying herself by doing what she can in office, now, to give herself options.
Very interesting post.
I can imagine that it really is a very hard decision for May, much harder than it seems to an armchair general like myself.
Firstly, she could be one of the favourites for the leadership whatever happens.
Secondly, does she really want to go against the first Tory leader in a generation to win a majority? It's not a trivial thing.
Thirdly, though she could become Prime Minister in the aftermath of a Leave win, does she want to become Prime Minister in those circumstances? In the time she would have in office, orchestrating Leave and getting it through Parliament would be her entire agenda. There would be no opportunity to do anything else. If she is not an absolutely committed leaver then that's not such a great prospect.
Fourthly and conversely, for a politician becoming Prime Minister, climbing to the top of the greasy poll, is perhaps worth anything and everything.
Fascinating today to watch Bloomberg and CNBC interviewing the great and the good at Davos as the markets collapse around their collective ears. Oil at $27 a barrel - so much for fracking in the UK (though if oil has been $150 a barrel before, it could be again one day).
On the issue of a Labour schism, the 1981 split was many years in the making (it arguably began with the rows between Gaitskell and the party over disarmament in the 1950s) so the question then becomes could a future split be personal but that requires a clear alternative personality to challenge Corbyn (akin to Hedeltine vs Thatcher post 1986 but much worse).
How many Councillors and activists could a new Labour grouping have ? Here in Newham there are 60 Labour Councillors and the Mayor - would they all stay "loyal" or as happened with Respect, would a few split away ? As I recall, there was no single electoral event which prefaced the 1981 schism (bar the 1979 defeat)
On a related, I've often wondered how many other Labour MPs and activists would have defected had Tony Benn won the Deputy Leadership election later that year.
It's very difficult to compare historical periods, due to different social and economic make-up's.
The split of 1981 was purely one at the top of the party, over policies that back then where seen as a matter of life or death (cold war, europe, CND, monetarism).
The base didn't follow, the SDP was simply absorbed into the Liberals over time because it failed to gain the support of ordinary people outside the small circle of Labour centrists, because most Labour voters where opposed to at least one of the things that the SDP espoused.
Today the ideological makeup of Labour is even more consistent than in 1981, the policies are less life or death matters, the public less interested about politics and less engaged. All this fuss is about those sore losers who lost to Corbyn, so another split at the top from the losers will seem even more mundane to Labour voters than the one in 1981.
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Yup - associating the Remain campaign with banks and with one particularly loathed Squid-like US bank is brilliant PR. Really brilliant.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
What next? The Vatican.
I would have thought they favoured the withdrawal method.
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Yup - associating the Remain campaign with banks and with one particularly loathed Squid-like US bank is brilliant PR. Really brilliant.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
Guy Verhofstadt has apparently agreed to come to the UK to argue the case for remaining in the EU.
The conditions for leaving are almost perfect.
And yet, I expect, Leave will snatch defeat from the jaws of a possible victory (though I have always thought Remain the most likely to win).
Peter Mandelson in his autobiography says that had Benn beaten Healey for the deputy leadership, he and many more MPs would have followed Owen, Jenkins and co into the SDP; that there was a sense in Brighton (where the 1981 conference was) that many delegates hadn't unpacked their bags and were waiting on the result as to what to do next.
But Mandelson wasn't an MP at the time, surely? Not until 1992.
I don't think 'Herbert Morrison's grandson, now a minor and not currently very successful publicity officer, has joined us' has quite the impact of an MP's defection.
And these are the people that Corbyn wants to talk to.
There are no polite words to describe the contempt I have for him.
I suppose the options are talk, fight or leave them be, and at the moment policy is #3, which is not much better if any than #1
It's not much more effective in defeating them, but it is still better. But we and them are not going to be in a position for #1 until #2 happens and some really major changes occur that would make it viable.
Unconditional surrender is what the Allies went for in WW2 (I know Godwin's Law and all that but don't care). IS need to be utterly defeated. So utterly defeated that anyone else with a fancy to set up another Al-Qaeda / IS / son of IS franchise decides it's not worth it. And the very idea of doing what these utter toads have been doing is viewed with the same horror, disdain and contempt by ordinary Arabs / Persians / Muslims as Europeans viewed - and still view - Fascism and Nazism today.
Unconditional surrender was possible as an aim against a recognised state-regime. What does that mean in the case of ISIL? Sure, their pseudo-state can be annihilated (as long as the Syrian and Iraqi governments permit it), but does it imply going after individual supporters after that? In Germany and Austria, most Nazis were left to crawl back into society.
Going after their most egregious and committed supporters: yes. Pour encourager les autres.
Going after everyone who maybe did not have a choice or who now realise the error of their ways. Maybe not. So long as what grows out of the ashes of what IS has destroyed is better and more hopeful then maybe that's the least worst option. But it is not me suffering under their yoke. I expect the Yazidis and Christians and Assyrians and Iraqis and Kurds and Syrians will have a view on this.
Sorry to interrupt, but economic events are taking place and oil is crashing at a rate that if it continues for another month the price of it will reach 0$.
Happy to bet oil doesn't reach $0/barrel
Whats the hard floor ?
People said it was $30, now they are talking about $25. I'm not an oil trader, but I think $16 is as low as it can go before it basically costs more to pump it out of the ground and ship it on tankers than to just leave it in the ground.
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Yup - associating the Remain campaign with banks and with one particularly loathed Squid-like US bank is brilliant PR. Really brilliant.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
Fascinating today to watch Bloomberg and CNBC interviewing the great and the good at Davos as the markets collapse around their collective ears. Oil at $27 a barrel - so much for fracking in the UK (though if oil has been $150 a barrel before, it could be again one day).
On the issue of a Labour schism, the 1981 split was many years in the making (it arguably began with the rows between Gaitskell and the party over disarmament in the 1950s) so the question then becomes could a future split be personal but that requires a clear alternative personality to challenge Corbyn (akin to Hedeltine vs Thatcher post 1986 but much worse).
How many Councillors and activists could a new Labour grouping have ? Here in Newham there are 60 Labour Councillors and the Mayor - would they all stay "loyal" or as happened with Respect, would a few split away ? As I recall, there was no single electoral event which prefaced the 1981 schism (bar the 1979 defeat)
On a related, I've often wondered how many other Labour MPs and activists would have defected had Tony Benn won the Deputy Leadership election later that year.
It's very difficult to compare historical periods, due to different social and economic make-up's.
The split of 1981 was purely one at the top of the party, over policies that back then where seen as a matter of life or death (cold war, europe, CND, monetarism).
The base didn't follow, the SDP was simply absorbed into the Liberals over time because it failed to gain the support of ordinary people outside the small circle of Labour centrists, because most Labour voters where opposed to at least one of the things that the SDP espoused.
Today the ideological makeup of Labour is even more consistent than in 1981, the policies are less life or death matters, the public less interested about politics and less engaged. All this fuss is about those sore losers who lost to Corbyn, so another split at the top from the losers will seem even more mundane to Labour voters than the one in 1981.
Seriously? Check the polls from the 1979-83 parliament:
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Yup - associating the Remain campaign with banks and with one particularly loathed Squid-like US bank is brilliant PR. Really brilliant.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
What next? The Vatican.
I would have thought they favoured the withdrawal method.
Certainly not. That is the sin of Onan (Genesis 38:4) and expressly forbidden by the Catholic church.
The only method of contraception they officially approve of is not having sex in the first place. So Britain should never have joined the EU. But having done so, we should stay in to be properly screwed.
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Yup - associating the Remain campaign with banks and with one particularly loathed Squid-like US bank is brilliant PR. Really brilliant.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
What next? The Vatican.
FFS.
Remain's being better organised just seems to mean that it shoots itself in the foot with greater regularity.
"The party is doing less well when it comes to attracting rural dwellers, elderly people and those struggling to make ends meet, leaked documents show."
That seems to fit the profile of the average conservative, apart from the last bit.
Peter Mandelson in his autobiography says that had Benn beaten Healey for the deputy leadership, he and many more MPs would have followed Owen, Jenkins and co into the SDP; that there was a sense in Brighton (where the 1981 conference was) that many delegates hadn't unpacked their bags and were waiting on the result as to what to do next.
But Mandelson wasn't an MP at the time, surely? Not until 1992.
I don't think 'Herbert Morrison's grandson, now a minor and not currently very successful publicity officer, has joined us' has quite the impact of an MP's defection.
No, he wasn't making any claim for himself in terms of his putative defection being of any importance, just that it's what he and - he believes - others would have done in response to a Benn victory.
In fact, he wasn't even a PR bod in 1981; he was a researcher for Albert Booth, Labour's Shadow Transport Secretary.
Whichever side of the fence you fall on, it seems wrong that our political debate is being swayed by an American bank. I am undecided yet but makes me want to vote out in protest.
Yup - associating the Remain campaign with banks and with one particularly loathed Squid-like US bank is brilliant PR. Really brilliant.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
Comments
More than you care to know about classification.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
She is in the poop
Mind you, having a landline is increasingly odd.
Imagine that soon we might be looking for a third way to reach people.
Trump 36%
Cruz 17%
Rubio 11%
Carson 8%
Bush 5%
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/cd79a80a-eff7-45f3-abc6-8e2079193b3d.pdf
Trump 48%
Cruz 16%
Rubio 11%
Bush 10%
Florida Democrats
Clinton 62%
Sanders 26%
General Election
Clinton 44% Trump 47%
Clinton 47% Cruz 42%
Clinton 46% Rubio 46%
Clinton 42% Bush 45%
Sanders 42% Trump 47%
Sanders 43% Cruz 43%
Sanders 42% Rubio 47%
http://business.fau.edu/departments/economics/business-economics-polling/bepi-polls/index.aspx#.Vp_edfmLTIW
Well, I largely stay off PB for a few days and come back to find discussions about poppers and all sorts of stuff.
Dear me! I can read this sort of stuff at work you know.
He recently got involved in raising money to help rescue persecuted Christians in the Middle East.
Of course, the problem with having less polls conducted over longer periods is that it would, presumably, be much less profitable for the polling companies (more costs by repeatedly phoning the same people, less output).
1) Clinton has committed criminal offenses - I can't see how that can be argued away.
2) She and her partisans will/do argue that they are just minor crimes.
3) Lesser folk have been sent to jail for doing less.
4) She is the front runner for the Democratic ticket.
5) The vengeance from her political machine if she goes down/misses her chance will be apocalyptic.
Add those together - who knows what will happen.... I could see it dragging along until Obama issues some kind of pardon.
Are the "don't knows" on the online pollsters hidden Remainers, who seem far fewer and more heavily for Remain on the phone, and will just default to the status quo on the day?
Or are the don't knows on the online polls actually just "non voters" on this issue, and phone pollsters are just picking up more of those motivated and politically engaged to answer EU referendum questions ?
Personally, I think it's a bit of both.
And these are the people that Corbyn wants to talk to.
There are no polite words to describe the contempt I have for him.
At which point the people of Britain will realise how much of what they pay in fuel goes in taxes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35366425
In case you missed it I'm happy to go above 12 (to your less than 10) but you should be aware the RCP average puts it at 16 at the moment.
@BBCNormanS: Labour position on Trident vote "ultimately a matter for the Leader" say Corbyn aides
@TomBlenkinsop: Er no it isn't. Back in your box. https://t.co/FLRW3TNQws
58,58,59,56,58,58,62,54,58
This is the real killer
PART 3 -- DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING
Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
(2) the originator's current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.
(c) The Director of National Intelligence (or, if delegated by the Director of National Intelligence, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence) may, with respect to the Intelligence Community, after consultation with the head of the originating Intelligence Community element or department, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence relating to intelligence sources, methods, or activities.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/iain-duncan-smith-to-go-it-alone-in-campaign-to-leave-eu
And this:
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-as-our-thoughts-turn-to-the-eu-theresa-may-needs-to-see-the-bigger-picture-a3161096.html
Tell me the Government has no clue what Theresa May will do and are worried about her.
She has been busy on police reform today - a new policing and crime bill seems forthcoming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35354139
And on immigration yesterday with further control measures:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/19/theresa-may-to-charge-firms-employing-skilled-migrants-1000-levy
Phrases like "we will respond in due course", "committed to seeing reform through", and "not yet made a final decision" leap out to me. But is she throwing the hounds off the scent, or clearing the decks?
I also find this parliamentary sketch interesting from Quentin Letts last week:
"In the House yesterday her Department was asked by Eurosceptic Tory MP Peter Bone (Wellingborough) what it might do with the billions of pounds we could save if we quit the EU. Mrs May, spoken of by some (probably wrongly) as a Eurosceptic, let one of her junior ministers cough up a non-answer.
But while the matter was under discussion she twiddled frantically with her ballpoint pen. Her face became twisted, as though by indigestion. She blinked, flinched, looked suddenly a bag of twitches."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3394749/QUENTIN-LETTS-Theresa-yesterday-Parliament.html
It obviously won't be Boris. It won't be IDS or Whittingdale. If it's Grayling or Villiers, Leave will lose. Patel is not the 'senior' cabinet minister alluded to by Lord Lawson.
So if Leave are serious it's Javid or May. If they're ramping, it's Grayling or Villiers.
Personally, I think May hasn't yet made her mind up - she knows there are big consequences either way - but is seriously thinking about it and readying herself by doing what she can in office, now, to give herself options.
If being a shy Tory/Leaver is a factor, then we should be looking at the online polls as the most accurate for the EuRef.
Although I think a lot people are waiting to make up their minds at the moment.
When the results of the negotiation are known, and the date of the ref, then it will start to get interesting.
Let's call him Pellner Keter for a made up name.
I'm only mentioning them because just a few moments ago Bob (the Bore) Dole came out of the dead:
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/689913565126328320
"“I question his allegiance to the party,” Mr. Dole said of Mr. Cruz. “I don’t know how often you’ve heard him say the word ‘Republican’ — not very often.” Instead, Mr. Cruz uses the word “conservative,” Mr. Dole said, before offering up a different word for Mr. Cruz: “extremist.” '
"The only person who could stop Mr. Cruz from capturing the nomination? “I think it’s Trump,” Mr. Dole said, adding that Mr. Trump was “gaining a little.” "
The pattern is similar with Branstad yesterday, Trump is attracting a lot of allies just because they hate Cruz more than Trump.
Fresh people, fresh ideas.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/689882775625863168
@iainjwatson: Labour's new members mostly wealthy city dwellers – leaked report https://t.co/784bGJ3zr5
As fresh as 40 year canned food, he probably read this and thought "yeap, the SDP is still edible" :
http://outdoorselfreliance.com/100-year-old-canned-food-safe-to-eat/
Looking back at General Elections final poll predictions overstated Labour in relation to the Tories in – 1959 – 1966 – 1970 – Oct 1974 – 1979 – 1987 – 1992 – 1997 – 2001 – 2005 – 2015.
Labour was understated in relation to the Tories in – Feb 1974 – 1983.
The Labour – Tory gap was much as predicted in – 1964 – 2010. (2005 was not far out either)
Some allowance probably has to be made for the fact that several of the elections were landslides in the making so that by Polling Day the result appeared to have become a foregone conclusion – perhaps discouraging some supporters of the party apparently miles ahead from turning out. This would apply to -1966 – maybe Oct 1974 where polls suggested a big Labour win – 1983 – 1997 – 2001.
Wishing to resolve matters by being open to talking is a nice theoretical exercise, but is not possible at the current time with IS, nor does it seem likely at present it ever will be.
Fascinating today to watch Bloomberg and CNBC interviewing the great and the good at Davos as the markets collapse around their collective ears. Oil at $27 a barrel - so much for fracking in the UK (though if oil has been $150 a barrel before, it could be again one day).
On the issue of a Labour schism, the 1981 split was many years in the making (it arguably began with the rows between Gaitskell and the party over disarmament in the 1950s) so the question then becomes could a future split be personal but that requires a clear alternative personality to challenge Corbyn (akin to Hedeltine vs Thatcher post 1986 but much worse).
How many Councillors and activists could a new Labour grouping have ? Here in Newham there are 60 Labour Councillors and the Mayor - would they all stay "loyal" or as happened with Respect, would a few split away ? As I recall, there was no single electoral event which prefaced the 1981 schism (bar the 1979 defeat)
On a related, I've often wondered how many other Labour MPs and activists would have defected had Tony Benn won the Deputy Leadership election later that year.
The biggest problem is how to treat the local population that is the main supplier of ISIS, and groups like ISIS, with men.
Religion cannot be defeated as easily as a political party or ideology, for once you can't kill or expose it's leader or founder since they are abstract creations.
What next: French farmers? "C'est necessaire que les Anglais restent dans l'Union Europeenne. Nous avons besoin de l'argent du Royaume-Uni."
Well we had the same issue in 1945, no. The population need to understand what an appalling black hole of misery IS leads them to and that there is a better alternative.
But to be honest I would be content with just persuading the morons in this country who supply IS with men and women and support and justification to stop doing so, though it seems that we're going to have to deal with more than disaffected youth (and yes I am looking at you Corbyn and your idiot friends).
Religion cannot be defeated but it can be made to change and adapt. How else did Christianity survive and continue to prosper despite its own bloodthirsty episodes?
The conditions for leaving are almost perfect.
Peter Mandelson in his autobiography says that had Benn beaten Healey for the deputy leadership, he and many more MPs would have followed Owen, Jenkins and co into the SDP; that there was a sense in Brighton (where the 1981 conference was) that many delegates hadn't unpacked their bags and were waiting on the result as to what to do next.
I don't know how much poetic licence there is in that - the deputy leadership campaign, for all its bitterness, didn't really matter that much; deputies never do. On the other hand, it was an extremely symbolic moment and in retrospect marked the high point of the left and the turning of the tide.
Going after everyone who maybe did not have a choice or who now realise the error of their ways. Maybe not. So long as what grows out of the ashes of what IS has destroyed is better and more hopeful then maybe that's the least worst option. But it is not me suffering under their yoke. I expect the Yazidis and Christians and Assyrians and Iraqis and Kurds and Syrians will have a view on this.
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/689911242773925888
Figures that will be seized upon by Corbyn’s critics show poorer supporters are now smaller proportion of membership"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/labours-new-members-mostly-wealthy-city-dwellers-leaked-report
I can imagine that it really is a very hard decision for May, much harder than it seems to an armchair general like myself.
Firstly, she could be one of the favourites for the leadership whatever happens.
Secondly, does she really want to go against the first Tory leader in a generation to win a majority? It's not a trivial thing.
Thirdly, though she could become Prime Minister in the aftermath of a Leave win, does she want to become Prime Minister in those circumstances? In the time she would have in office, orchestrating Leave and getting it through Parliament would be her entire agenda. There would be no opportunity to do anything else. If she is not an absolutely committed leaver then that's not such a great prospect.
Fourthly and conversely, for a politician becoming Prime Minister, climbing to the top of the greasy poll, is perhaps worth anything and everything.
So what to do?
The split of 1981 was purely one at the top of the party, over policies that back then where seen as a matter of life or death (cold war, europe, CND, monetarism).
The base didn't follow, the SDP was simply absorbed into the Liberals over time because it failed to gain the support of ordinary people outside the small circle of Labour centrists, because most Labour voters where opposed to at least one of the things that the SDP espoused.
Today the ideological makeup of Labour is even more consistent than in 1981, the policies are less life or death matters, the public less interested about politics and less engaged.
All this fuss is about those sore losers who lost to Corbyn, so another split at the top from the losers will seem even more mundane to Labour voters than the one in 1981.
I don't think 'Herbert Morrison's grandson, now a minor and not currently very successful publicity officer, has joined us' has quite the impact of an MP's defection.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983
The effect of the split on the Lib / Alliance vote is obvious, immediate and huge.
The only method of contraception they officially approve of is not having sex in the first place. So Britain should never have joined the EU. But having done so, we should stay in to be properly screwed.
Remain's being better organised just seems to mean that it shoots itself in the foot with greater regularity.
That seems to fit the profile of the average conservative, apart from the last bit.
Mildly interesting article, but the lefty meltdown below the line is a thing of rare beauty
In fact, he wasn't even a PR bod in 1981; he was a researcher for Albert Booth, Labour's Shadow Transport Secretary.