politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters Podcast looks ahead to Iowa

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters Podcast looks ahead to Iowa and the importance of turnout

On this week’s PB/Polling Matters podcast Keiran speaks to Will Jordan from YouGov in the U.S. They discuss the state of the 2016 race as it stands, the importance of turnout at next week’s Iowa caucuses (and what that might mean for Trump and Sanders) plus how important Iowa will be for the wider race in such an apparently unconventional election cycle.

Read the full story here

Sunil_Prasannan

USA! USA! USA!

RobD

Second!
Like a good Scottish Tory

Pulpstar

Who will Sunil J Prasannan be endorsing ?

Luckyguy1983

OT: https://www.rt.com/news/330469-german-police-not-prosecute-migrants/

German police told not to prosecute migrants for petty crimes. Once again, no consequences. It is absurd to speak of cultural incompatibility in such final terms, when doing nothing about the behaviours we decry. How many convictions are we now up to in the UK for FGM, vs. the number of incidences of the practise?

Plato_Says

Britain Elects
The party which 'is most clear and united about what its policies should be':
CON: 33%
LAB: 13%
UKIP: 11%
LDEM: 5%
(via Ipsos Mori)

RobD

Plato_Says said:

Britain Elects
The party which 'is most clear and united about what its policies should be':
CON: 33%
LAB: 13%
UKIP: 11%
LDEM: 5%
(via Ipsos Mori)

Us Blues clearly need to work on our messaging. We're for eating babies, smashing the poor.

taffys

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-in-sides-shockingly-bad-start-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

Off topic, but a good summary of where we stand, for me....

taffys

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12127829/David-Cameron-being-offered-watered-down-emergency-brake-on-migrants-by-Brussels.html

Horrible headline for Cameron in the telegraph.

RobD

taffys said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12127829/David-Cameron-being-offered-watered-down-emergency-brake-on-migrants-by-Brussels.html

Horrible headline for Cameron in the telegraph.

Come on Cam... campaign for Out!

flightpath01

FPT
Someone asked about the structural deficit.
The tory manifesto promised to eliminate the structural deficit ...
‘Safeguard Britain’s credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament set out in an emergency Budget within 50 days of taking office.
http://metro.co.uk/2010/04/13/general-election-2010-conservative-partys-manifesto-the-top-20-pledges-236432/#ixzz3yYPorJjs
I guess you could plough through the manifesto itself

In the first budget Osorne said
'The coalition Government has inherited from its predecessor the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe with the single exception of Ireland. One pound in every four we spend is being borrowed. What we have not inherited from our predecessor is a credible plan to reduce their record deficit.'
He also pointed out re Browns ''Golden Rule'' --- 'We are set to miss the golden rule in this cycle by 485 billion pounds'
And claimed 'we are on track to have debt falling and a balanced structural current budget by the end of this Parliament'

I think it was the 2012 budget where they scaled back the claim because the structural deficit was bigger, and slowed the pace if cuts. By my search they were some 25 billion behind their projections of 2010 by 2014-15 as far as spending was concerned.
Spending has risen under Osborne in absolute terms but at nothing like the rate under Brown between 2001 to 2010. Given the howls from every conceivable quarter its hard to see how spending could be squeezed more in that time. And the same applies now over the next 5 years - interested parties make spending cuts eternally difficult.

weejonnie

taffys said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12127829/David-Cameron-being-offered-watered-down-emergency-brake-on-migrants-by-Brussels.html

Horrible headline for Cameron in the telegraph.

The EU are trying the old - You give up something and we'll look at what you want.

Fool me once ...

Alistair

flightpath01 said:

FPT
Someone asked about the structural deficit.
The tory manifesto promised to eliminate the structural deficit ...
‘Safeguard Britain’s credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament set out in an emergency Budget within 50 days of taking office.
http://metro.co.uk/2010/04/13/general-election-2010-conservative-partys-manifesto-the-top-20-pledges-236432/#ixzz3yYPorJjs
I guess you could plough through the manifesto itself

In the first budget Osorne said
'The coalition Government has inherited from its predecessor the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe with the single exception of Ireland. One pound in every four we spend is being borrowed. What we have not inherited from our predecessor is a credible plan to reduce their record deficit.'
He also pointed out re Browns ''Golden Rule'' --- 'We are set to miss the golden rule in this cycle by 485 billion pounds'
And claimed 'we are on track to have debt falling and a balanced structural current budget by the end of this Parliament'

I think it was the 2012 budget where they scaled back the claim because the structural deficit was bigger, and slowed the pace if cuts. By my search they were some 25 billion behind their projections of 2010 by 2014-15 as far as spending was concerned.
Spending has risen under Osborne in absolute terms but at nothing like the rate under Brown between 2001 to 2010. Given the howls from every conceivable quarter its hard to see how spending could be squeezed more in that time. And the same applies now over the next 5 years - interested parties make spending cuts eternally difficult.

Thanks for that. I feel a bit dumb for not checking the manifesto, it's very clear it is talking about structural deficit and even qualifies it as eliminating the "bulk of" rather than all.

Plato_Says

The voters are stupid and falling for our lies.

RobD said:

Plato_Says said:

Britain Elects
The party which 'is most clear and united about what its policies should be':
CON: 33%
LAB: 13%
UKIP: 11%
LDEM: 5%
(via Ipsos Mori)

Us Blues clearly need to work on our messaging. We're for eating babies, smashing the poor.

Casino_Royale

weejonnie said:

taffys said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12127829/David-Cameron-being-offered-watered-down-emergency-brake-on-migrants-by-Brussels.html

Horrible headline for Cameron in the telegraph.

The EU are trying the old - You give up something and we'll look at what you want.

Fool me once ...

If we vote Remain we will deserve everything we get.

Sunil_Prasannan

Pulpstar said:

Who will Sunil J Prasannan be endorsing ?

Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shutdown of AV threads entering PB.com, until our forum's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on!

Plato_Says

Cruel, but true http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-in-sides-shockingly-bad-start-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

The ‘in’ campaign has been up and running for months, and recently secured large donations from Goldman Sachs and other American megabanks. With such resources, we should be hearing fresh, high-quality arguments delivered with passion and elan. Instead, we have had the likes of David Lammy, a former London mayoral hopeful, telling us that a million Indians died during the second world war ‘fighting for the European project’. There certainly was a project to integrate Europe at the time, but it is one that Indians (and others) helped to thwart.

Then we have the tragicomic figure of Stuart Rose, who fronts the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign. He seems unable even to remember its name, bizarrely calling it the ‘Better Stay in Britain’ campaign. It was shocking, but not surprising, to hear that he had not bothered to marshal even the most basic facts. What’s worse is to find out that BSE (to use its unfortunate acronym) had not bothered to carry out proper research itself.

NorfolkTilIDie

Plato_Says said:

Cruel, but true http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-in-sides-shockingly-bad-start-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

The ‘in’ campaign has been up and running for months, and recently secured large donations from Goldman Sachs and other American megabanks. With such resources, we should be hearing fresh, high-quality arguments delivered with passion and elan. Instead, we have had the likes of David Lammy, a former London mayoral hopeful, telling us that a million Indians died during the second world war ‘fighting for the European project’. There certainly was a project to integrate Europe at the time, but it is one that Indians (and others) helped to thwart.

Then we have the tragicomic figure of Stuart Rose, who fronts the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign. He seems unable even to remember its name, bizarrely calling it the ‘Better Stay in Britain’ campaign. It was shocking, but not surprising, to hear that he had not bothered to marshal even the most basic facts. What’s worse is to find out that BSE (to use its unfortunate acronym) had not bothered to carry out proper research itself.

Both sides of the campaign should be very thankful the other side is also in dire straits.

TOPPING

Plato_Says said:

Cruel, but true http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-in-sides-shockingly-bad-start-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

The ‘in’ campaign has been up and running for months, and recently secured large donations from Goldman Sachs and other American megabanks. With such resources, we should be hearing fresh, high-quality arguments delivered with passion and elan. Instead, we have had the likes of David Lammy, a former London mayoral hopeful, telling us that a million Indians died during the second world war ‘fighting for the European project’. There certainly was a project to integrate Europe at the time, but it is one that Indians (and others) helped to thwart.

Then we have the tragicomic figure of Stuart Rose, who fronts the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign. He seems unable even to remember its name, bizarrely calling it the ‘Better Stay in Britain’ campaign. It was shocking, but not surprising, to hear that he had not bothered to marshal even the most basic facts. What’s worse is to find out that BSE (to use its unfortunate acronym) had not bothered to carry out proper research itself.

Haven't heard the others but they should put a bullet into Rose's involvement as soon as humanly possible.

Plus rebrand the BSE...

glw

RobD said:

Us Blues clearly need to work on our messaging. We're for eating babies, smashing the poor.

In this time of austerity the government should look for efficiency savings and combine those two objectives into one of eating the babies of the poor.

Richard_Nabavi

glw said:

RobD said:

Us Blues clearly need to work on our messaging. We're for eating babies, smashing the poor.

In this time of austerity the government should look for efficiency savings and combine those two objectives into one of eating the babies of the poor.

.. and charging the poor for the privilege, of course, after all it saves them a bunch of expenditure.

isam

taffys said:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-in-sides-shockingly-bad-start-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

Off topic, but a good summary of where we stand, for me....

"David Cameron wants to get the European Union referendum over with quickly — and understandably so. Things are still going well for him, and his political opposition is in disarray. The ‘in’ campaign will draw heavily upon his personal authority "

@Richard_Nabavi likes to pretend that all kippers said Cameron would back out of a referendum, when I cant think of any that said that.. but what I did say pre GE was pretty much the above - If Cameron got a majority it would give him an virtual casting vote on the referendum, such would be his authority and powers at his disposal, and as he is committed to REMAIN, that is why I couldn't vote for him, and would probably have preferred a weak hung parliament either way

But it is what it is. I cant really imagine LEAVE can win though.. The EU may well be letting in migrant rapists from a medieval society, but spin always seems to win over truth

SandyRentool

TOPPING said:

Plato_Says said:

Cruel, but true http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-in-sides-shockingly-bad-start-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

The ‘in’ campaign has been up and running for months, and recently secured large donations from Goldman Sachs and other American megabanks. With such resources, we should be hearing fresh, high-quality arguments delivered with passion and elan. Instead, we have had the likes of David Lammy, a former London mayoral hopeful, telling us that a million Indians died during the second world war ‘fighting for the European project’. There certainly was a project to integrate Europe at the time, but it is one that Indians (and others) helped to thwart.

Then we have the tragicomic figure of Stuart Rose, who fronts the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign. He seems unable even to remember its name, bizarrely calling it the ‘Better Stay in Britain’ campaign. It was shocking, but not surprising, to hear that he had not bothered to marshal even the most basic facts. What’s worse is to find out that BSE (to use its unfortunate acronym) had not bothered to carry out proper research itself.

Haven't heard the others but they should put a bullet into Rose's involvement as soon as humanly possible.

Plus rebrand the BSE...

Remain is backed by big business, bankers, bureaucrats and Blairites.

Unfortunately on the Leave side we have got buffoons, bigheads and the barking.

Plato_Says

Which are you?

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

Plato_Says said:

Cruel, but true http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-in-sides-shockingly-bad-start-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

The ‘in’ campaign has been up and running for months, and recently secured large donations from Goldman Sachs and other American megabanks. With such resources, we should be hearing fresh, high-quality arguments delivered with passion and elan. Instead, we have had the likes of David Lammy, a former London mayoral hopeful, telling us that a million Indians died during the second world war ‘fighting for the European project’. There certainly was a project to integrate Europe at the time, but it is one that Indians (and others) helped to thwart.

Then we have the tragicomic figure of Stuart Rose, who fronts the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign. He seems unable even to remember its name, bizarrely calling it the ‘Better Stay in Britain’ campaign. It was shocking, but not surprising, to hear that he had not bothered to marshal even the most basic facts. What’s worse is to find out that BSE (to use its unfortunate acronym) had not bothered to carry out proper research itself.

Haven't heard the others but they should put a bullet into Rose's involvement as soon as humanly possible.

Plus rebrand the BSE...

Remain is backed by big business, bankers, bureaucrats and Blairites.

Unfortunately on the Leave side we have got buffoons, bigheads and the barking.

SandyRentool

glw said:

RobD said:

Us Blues clearly need to work on our messaging. We're for eating babies, smashing the poor.

In this time of austerity the government should look for efficiency savings and combine those two objectives into one of eating the babies of the poor.

They would eradicate child poverty. A noble cause indeed, and one we can unite behind, I am certain.

glw

SandyRentool said:

glw said:

RobD said:

Us Blues clearly need to work on our messaging. We're for eating babies, smashing the poor.

In this time of austerity the government should look for efficiency savings and combine those two objectives into one of eating the babies of the poor.

They would eradicate child poverty. A noble cause indeed, and one we can unite behind, I am certain.

Not if they insist on using a relative measure of poverty, in which case the Tories will have to eat almost every baby in Britain.

TOPPING

isam said:

taffys said:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-in-sides-shockingly-bad-start-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

Off topic, but a good summary of where we stand, for me....

"David Cameron wants to get the European Union referendum over with quickly — and understandably so. Things are still going well for him, and his political opposition is in disarray. The ‘in’ campaign will draw heavily upon his personal authority "

@Richard_Nabavi likes to pretend that all kippers said Cameron would back out of a referendum, when I cant think of any that said that.. but what I did say pre GE was pretty much the above - If Cameron got a majority it would give him an virtual casting vote on the referendum, such would be his authority and powers at his disposal, and as he is committed to REMAIN, that is why I couldn't vote for him, and would probably have preferred a weak hung parliament either way

But it is what it is. I cant really imagine LEAVE can win though.. The EU may well be letting in migrant rapists from a medieval society, but spin always seems to win over truth

You are making the classic left-wing intellectual's argument. You alone will be able to see through Cam's fiendish plans but the broad mass of the public will be hoodwinked. Trust the people, Sam and you know what? If they can't be bothered to find out more then either they don't care, they are happy for other people to decide on their behalf, or they deserve whatever they get.

taffys

''But it is what it is. I cant really imagine LEAVE can win though.. The EU may well be letting in migrant rapists from a medieval society, but spin always seems to win over truth''

Seen the Mail's picture of the ''15-year old'' accused of stabbing that Swedish girl???

Richard_Nabavi

Plato_Says said:

... Instead, we have had the likes of David Lammy, a former London mayoral hopeful, telling us that a million Indians died during the second world war ‘fighting for the European project’. There certainly was a project to integrate Europe at the time, but it is one that Indians (and others) helped to thwart....

Without going over all Kipperish, it is in fact historically true that the founding of the original European Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the EU) was based on ideas which had been originally proposed under the Nazis. Some of the French and German industrialists and bureaucrats who had been involved in the wartime planning ended up heavily involved in the post-war organisation.

This excellent book provides some very interesting historical background:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Empire-Nazi-Occupied-Europe-ebook/dp/B00ANXXLFA/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Pulpstar

taffys said:

''But it is what it is. I cant really imagine LEAVE can win though.. The EU may well be letting in migrant rapists from a medieval society, but spin always seems to win over truth''

Seen the Mail's picture of the ''15-year old'' accused of stabbing that Swedish girl???

Fifteen. Yeah right !

Richard_Nabavi

isam said:

@Richard_Nabavi likes to pretend that all kippers said Cameron would back out of a referendum, when I cant think of any that said that.

You haven't looked very hard, then:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/574958/Farage-don-t-trust-Cameron-on-EU-referendum-promise

Or just look at any - and I really do mean any - thread here where the subject was discussed.

isam

TOPPING said:

isam said:

taffys said:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-in-sides-shockingly-bad-start-in-the-eu-referendum-campaign/

Off topic, but a good summary of where we stand, for me....

"David Cameron wants to get the European Union referendum over with quickly — and understandably so. Things are still going well for him, and his political opposition is in disarray. The ‘in’ campaign will draw heavily upon his personal authority "

@Richard_Nabavi likes to pretend that all kippers said Cameron would back out of a referendum, when I cant think of any that said that.. but what I did say pre GE was pretty much the above - If Cameron got a majority it would give him an virtual casting vote on the referendum, such would be his authority and powers at his disposal, and as he is committed to REMAIN, that is why I couldn't vote for him, and would probably have preferred a weak hung parliament either way

But it is what it is. I cant really imagine LEAVE can win though.. The EU may well be letting in migrant rapists from a medieval society, but spin always seems to win over truth

You are making the classic left-wing intellectual's argument. You alone will be able to see through Cam's fiendish plans but the broad mass of the public will be hoodwinked. Trust the people, Sam and you know what? If they can't be bothered to find out more then either they don't care, they are happy for other people to decide on their behalf, or they deserve whatever they get.

I am not saying that I alone can see it, but that people who vote for someone who then wins are likely to believe in that man, and if he is committed to the opposite side of an argument to me on a referendum question, I see that as bad news for my side, not least because he has control over the wheels of power which influence so many other powerful institutions

isam

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

@Richard_Nabavi likes to pretend that all kippers said Cameron would back out of a referendum, when I cant think of any that said that.

You haven't looked very hard, then:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/574958/Farage-don-t-trust-Cameron-on-EU-referendum-promise

Or just look at any - and I really do mean any - thread here where the subject was discussed.

I was going to make the distinction of "people on this site" as that is who you were offering the bet to, but didn't think I needed to spoon feed such a wise being as yourself

Who are these people who said Cameron wont hold a referendum if he wins a majority? Not that it is my business really as it was not me, I just wanted the best mechanism to get us out of the EU, didn't have to be right now, and I don't think Cam majority is/was that mechanism

Sunil_Prasannan

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato_Says said:

... Instead, we have had the likes of David Lammy, a former London mayoral hopeful, telling us that a million Indians died during the second world war ‘fighting for the European project’. There certainly was a project to integrate Europe at the time, but it is one that Indians (and others) helped to thwart....

Without going over all Kipperish, it is in fact historically true that the founding of the original European Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the EU) was based on ideas which had been originally proposed under the Nazis. Some of the French and German industrialists and bureaucrats who had been involved in the wartime planning ended up heavily involved in the post-war organisation.

This excellent book provides some very interesting historical background:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Empire-Nazi-Occupied-Europe-ebook/dp/B00ANXXLFA/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/World_War_II_in_Europe,_1942.svg/2000px-World_War_II_in_Europe,_1942.svg.png

Danny565

Interesting sort-of endorsement for Sadiq Khan from the Jewish Chronicle:

The broken, bitter relationship between the community and Labour - which seemingly hit rock-bottom at last May's general election after five years of Ed Miliband's leadership - has plummeted further since Jeremy Corbyn grabbed control of the party.

Mr Goldsmith could be expected to seize on this and, coupled with his pro-Israel stance and Jewish background, secure the backing of Jewish voters.

Yet on the current evidence, it is Mr Khan who has made the most attractive approach. In interviews I've conducted with the two candidates, I've seen a hunger and will-to-win from one man, and an insouciant, laid-back almost to the point of being horizontal, approach from the other.

Mr Khan is determined to lead London after May 5, and unless Mr Goldsmith gets his campaign into gear quickly, it will be the red flag flying over mayor HQ on the bank of the Thames.

http://www.thejc.com/node/152843

One wonders if Zac is "too posh to push", so to speak.

weejonnie

Anyone fancy taking their kids to Euro Disney http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12128045/French-police-arrest-man-with-guns-in-suitcase-outside-Disneyland.html

Richard_Nabavi

isam said:

Who are these people who said Cameron wont hold a referendum if he wins a majority?

Socrates was the most vocal, but there were lots of others. Obviously I wouldn't have bothered to offer a bet if there hadn't been plenty of people going on about it. Sadly none of them put their money where their mouth was!

Look yourself, if you are interested.

Speedy

On topic:

Trump's event is going to be covered live from CNN and MSNBC, he couldn't get the big networks due to FCC fair time rules.
Rumour is circulating that Santorum and Huckabee will join him, while Cruz is trying to organize a boycott of Trump's event.

Meanwhile Cruz is offering $1.5 million to debate Trump, Fiorina is offering $2 million to debate Trump.

Also there is a rumour that Sen.Sessions is going to endorse Trump today.

Moses_

glw said:

SandyRentool said:

glw said:

RobD said:

Us Blues clearly need to work on our messaging. We're for eating babies, smashing the poor.

In this time of austerity the government should look for efficiency savings and combine those two objectives into one of eating the babies of the poor.

They would eradicate child poverty. A noble cause indeed, and one we can unite behind, I am certain.

Not if they insist on using a relative measure of poverty, in which case the Tories will have to eat almost every baby in Britain.

Wasn't the relative measure of poverty based on whether they had access to the latest PlayStation.

Richard_Nabavi

Speedy said:

Meanwhile Cruz is offering $1.5 million to debate Trump, Fiorina is offering $2 million to debate Trump.

Offering to whom?

david_herdson

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato_Says said:

... Instead, we have had the likes of David Lammy, a former London mayoral hopeful, telling us that a million Indians died during the second world war ‘fighting for the European project’. There certainly was a project to integrate Europe at the time, but it is one that Indians (and others) helped to thwart....

Without going over all Kipperish, it is in fact historically true that the founding of the original European Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the EU) was based on ideas which had been originally proposed under the Nazis. Some of the French and German industrialists and bureaucrats who had been involved in the wartime planning ended up heavily involved in the post-war organisation.

This excellent book provides some very interesting historical background:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Empire-Nazi-Occupied-Europe-ebook/dp/B00ANXXLFA/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Although it's also true that they proposed the ECSC precisely in order to prevent any country having the means to war by placing the raw materials - coal and steel (and later nuclear power with Euratom) - under an international authority.

It was a misconceived plan in that a member minded to make war on their neighbour could always withdraw but that doesn't change the intent.

isam

taffys said:

''But it is what it is. I cant really imagine LEAVE can win though.. The EU may well be letting in migrant rapists from a medieval society, but spin always seems to win over truth''

Seen the Mail's picture of the ''15-year old'' accused of stabbing that Swedish girl???

The truth is irrelevant, Spin Wins. The most important thing is not losing the argument and framing the narrative in the way that makes you look clever

People still say Enoch Powell was wrong even as we see 2nd and 3rd generations immigrants living in segregated ghettoes, bombing the tube, going on Kalashnikov shooting sprees, demanding Sharia Law, beheading British people home & abroad and joining ISIS.

Speedy

Richard_Nabavi said:

Speedy said:

Meanwhile Cruz is offering $1.5 million to debate Trump, Fiorina is offering $2 million to debate Trump.

Offering to whom?

To Trump's veteran charity.

Casino_Royale

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato_Says said:

... Instead, we have had the likes of David Lammy, a former London mayoral hopeful, telling us that a million Indians died during the second world war ‘fighting for the European project’. There certainly was a project to integrate Europe at the time, but it is one that Indians (and others) helped to thwart....

Without going over all Kipperish, it is in fact historically true that the founding of the original European Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the EU) was based on ideas which had been originally proposed under the Nazis. Some of the French and German industrialists and bureaucrats who had been involved in the wartime planning ended up heavily involved in the post-war organisation.

This excellent book provides some very interesting historical background:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Empire-Nazi-Occupied-Europe-ebook/dp/B00ANXXLFA/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Put you down as a Maybe?

Pulpstar

Speedy said:

On topic:

Trump's event is going to be covered live from CNN and MSNBC, he couldn't get the big networks due to FCC fair time rules.
Rumour is circulating that Santorum and Huckabee will join him, while Cruz is trying to organize a boycott of Trump's event.

Meanwhile Cruz is offering $1.5 million to debate Trump, Fiorina is offering $2 million to debate Trump.

Also there is a rumour that Sen.Sessions is going to endorse Trump today.

Rick Santorum !

He's made Tim Fallon look high profile this time round.

david_herdson

On topic, a good podcast from Kieran. For now, I think the best question he asks is in relation to Sanders: if he doesn't win Iowa, is his campaign over? To which the answer is probably 'yes'. He really needs to do the double-first in order to carry enough momentum into the South to remain a serious player. (Unless Hillary gets FBI-ed).

On the GOP side, possibly the same is true in reverse: if Trump does the double then it's hard to see anyone beating him.

Plato_Says

Saw a poll yesterday saying something like 80% of GOP viewers wouldn't watch without Trump. If he's on CNN, I'll watch that instead. And only because MSNBC is even worse

Speedy said:

On topic:

Trump's event is going to be covered live from CNN and MSNBC, he couldn't get the big networks due to FCC fair time rules.
Rumour is circulating that Santorum and Huckabee will join him, while Cruz is trying to organize a boycott of Trump's event.

Meanwhile Cruz is offering $1.5 million to debate Trump, Fiorina is offering $2 million to debate Trump.

Also there is a rumour that Sen.Sessions is going to endorse Trump today.

isam

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

Who are these people who said Cameron wont hold a referendum if he wins a majority?

Socrates was the most vocal, but there were lots of others. Obviously I wouldn't have bothered to offer a bet if there hadn't been plenty of people going on about it. Sadly none of them put their money where their mouth was!

Look yourself, if you are interested.

No I think Socrates said Cameron would try to influence the referendum by using various political tools at his disposal, he didn't say Cameron wouldn't hold a referendum.

I am not really that interested, I think your continual reference to the "amazing" bet you offered is just pompous and disingenuous point scoring, but whats new?

Richard_Nabavi

david_herdson said:

Although it's also true that they proposed the ECSC precisely in order to prevent any country having the means to war by placing the raw materials - coal and steel (and later nuclear power with Euratom) - under an international authority.

It was a misconceived plan in that a member minded to make war on their neighbour could always withdraw but that doesn't change the intent.

I don't think it was necessarily misconceived. The idea was to make the two industries so integrated and inter-dependent that it wouldn't be practical for one to withdraw.

That wasn't the only purpose, of course; the industrialists and bureaucrats (as distinct from Robert Schuman and the politicians) were trying to get economies of scale and greater efficiency.

Speedy

Plato_Says said:

Saw a poll yesterday saying something like 80% of GOP viewers wouldn't watch without Trump. If he's on CNN, I'll watch that instead. And only because MSNBC is even worse

Speedy said:

On topic:

Trump's event is going to be covered live from CNN and MSNBC, he couldn't get the big networks due to FCC fair time rules.
Rumour is circulating that Santorum and Huckabee will join him, while Cruz is trying to organize a boycott of Trump's event.

Meanwhile Cruz is offering $1.5 million to debate Trump, Fiorina is offering $2 million to debate Trump.

Also there is a rumour that Sen.Sessions is going to endorse Trump today.

If you watched Scarborough on MSNBC and wondering why he's so pro-Trump the answer is this:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/692505677810503681

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/692501607297257473

Plato_Says

Peter Mannion
Now virtually nothing left to show for heaving lummox Chris Grayling's years at MoJ: #legalaid https://t.co/ZCmcMLTntn

Richard_Nabavi

isam said:

No I think Socrates said Cameron would try to influence the referendum by using various political tools at his disposal, he didn't say Cameron wouldn't hold a referendum.

I am not really that interested, I think your continual reference to the "amazing" bet you offered is just pompous and disingenuous point scoring, but whats new?

If you're not interested, why do you keep bringing it up? I don't take kindly to being accused of lying; I only ever mention the bet offer because you keep saying it didn't exist.

As for Socrates, no, he started off by saying Cameron wouldn't hold a referendum. When I pinned him down, he backed off and went down some ridiculous side-alley about a referendum where changes to treaties were agreed in advance.

Of course the reason for all this was that I made the incontrovertible point that, if they wanted a referendum (which they kept saying they did, at once), they should vote Conservative, unless Labour made a similar pledge.

I was right, of course. The Kippers wasted two years before the election messing about trying to get a handful of MPs, rather than building the Brexit case. We are seeing the consequences now; they might be rescued by the migration crisis, but I doubt it.

Luckyguy1983

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

@Richard_Nabavi likes to pretend that all kippers said Cameron would back out of a referendum, when I cant think of any that said that.

You haven't looked very hard, then:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/574958/Farage-don-t-trust-Cameron-on-EU-referendum-promise

Or just look at any - and I really do mean any - thread here where the subject was discussed.

It was funny behaviour from Nigel at that time - I don't know what the strategy of calling for an earlier referendum was all about.

I seem to remember more kippers here declaring that Cameron would use every foul means at his disposal to win the referendum, not that he wouldn't hold it.

isam

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

No I think Socrates said Cameron would try to influence the referendum by using various political tools at his disposal, he didn't say Cameron wouldn't hold a referendum.

I am not really that interested, I think your continual reference to the "amazing" bet you offered is just pompous and disingenuous point scoring, but whats new?

If you're not interested, why do you keep bringing it up? I don't take kindly to being accused of lying; I only ever mention the bet offer because you keep saying it didn't exist.

As for Socrates, no, he started off by saying Cameron wouldn't hold a referendum. When I pinned him down, he backed off and went down some ridiculous side-alley about a referendum where changes to treaties were agreed in advance.

Of course the reason for all this was that I made the incontrovertible point that, if they wanted a referendum (which they kept saying they did, at once), they should vote Conservative, unless Labour made a similar pledge.

I was right, of course. The Kippers wasted two years before the election messing about trying to get a handful of MPs, rather than building the Brexit case. We are seeing the consequences now; they might be rescued by the migration crisis, but I doubt it.

I brought it up to contrast your spin with my position

As for the rest of it, are you honestly saying that LEAVE would have a worse chance of success had the Conservatives gotten 321 MPs and UKIP 10?

Danny565

Richard_Nabavi said:

I was right, of course. The Kippers wasted two years before the election messing about trying to get a handful of MPs, rather than building the Brexit case. We are seeing the consequences now; they might be rescued by the migration crisis, but I doubt it.

I still don't get what you mean by this. Why is it incumbent upon UKIP to make one indisputable case for what Britain will be like outside the UK? No-one (not even UKIP themselves) thinks UKIP are going to be the government in charge of the exit strategy. Nor frankly would I, as a potential Leaver, want them to, since my preferred option for a post-Brexit Britain would be different to UKIP's.

Richard_Nabavi

isam said:

As for the rest of it, are you honestly saying that LEAVE would have a worse chance of success had the Conservatives gotten 321 MPs and UKIP 10?

Of course not. But there wouldn't have been a referendum at all unless Cameron had a majority, or at least was PM in a Con/LibDem coalition and the LibDems played ball (possible, but not certain). UKIP spent most of their efforts trying to prevent that.

In the end, as I had predicted was quite likely, Tory/UKIP switchers switched back more than Labour/UKIP switchers, so we were spared a Miliband government and got the referendum; that was despite UKIP's efforts, not because of them.

Richard_Nabavi

Luckyguy1983 said:

It was funny behaviour from Nigel at that time - I don't know what the strategy of calling for an earlier referendum was all about.

No, I never understood it either.

John_M

Moses_ said:

glw said:

SandyRentool said:

glw said:

RobD said:

Us Blues clearly need to work on our messaging. We're for eating babies, smashing the poor.

In this time of austerity the government should look for efficiency savings and combine those two objectives into one of eating the babies of the poor.

They would eradicate child poverty. A noble cause indeed, and one we can unite behind, I am certain.

Not if they insist on using a relative measure of poverty, in which case the Tories will have to eat almost every baby in Britain.

Wasn't the relative measure of poverty based on whether they had access to the latest PlayStation.

We live in a world where you're homeless if your kids have to share a bedroom and poor if you don't have an iPhone.

isam

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

As for the rest of it, are you honestly saying that LEAVE would have a worse chance of success had the Conservatives gotten 321 MPs and UKIP 10?

Of course not. But there wouldn't have been a referendum at all unless Cameron had a majority, or at least was PM and the LibDems played ball (possible, but not certain). UKIP spent most of their efforts trying to prevent that.

In the end, as I had predicted was quite likely, Tory/UKIP switchers switched back more than Labour/UKIP switchers, so we were spared a Miliband government and got the referendum; that was despite UKIP's efforts, not because of them.

I thought Cameron said there would be a referendum if he was PM, majority or not? In my scenario of 321 Con and 10 UKIP, he would have been PM and held a referendum, and as an OUTER that's what I thought was best for us and voted accordingly.. What is so crackers about that?

As it happens, I would have preferred a weak coalition w Miliband PM, quickly overthrown by second GE with a Eurosceptic Tory leader... but alas it is what it is

Luckyguy1983

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I was right, of course. The Kippers wasted two years before the election messing about trying to get a handful of MPs, rather than building the Brexit case. We are seeing the consequences now; they might be rescued by the migration crisis, but I doubt it.

I still don't get what you mean by this. Why is it incumbent upon UKIP to make one indisputable case for what Britain will be like outside the UK? No-one (not even UKIP themselves) thinks UKIP are going to be the government in charge of the exit strategy. Nor frankly would I, as a potential Leaver, want them to, since my preferred option for a post-Brexit Britain would be different to UKIP's.

Nail, meet Head.

It's a blindingly obvious 'Remain' attack line, to which the only response is to ask them to predict the next 20 years WITHIN the EU, then watch them flounder.

Richard_Nabavi

isam said:

I thought Cameron said there would be a referendum if he was PM, majority or not?

Yes he did, but that wasn't binding on the LibDems, was it? So I guess he wouldn't have been PM, unless the LibDems played ball. I don't know whether they would have done or not; I posted here that I thought they probably would, but it was by no means certain, and others disagreed.

Speedy

Final NBC/WSJ Iowa poll:

Trump 32+8
Cruz 25 -3
Rubio 18 +5
Carson 8 -3
Bush 4 0
Rest 2 each

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/NBC News_WSJ_Marist Poll_Iowa Annotated Questionnaire_January 28 2016.pdf

Note, this poll finished the day Trump announced his withdrawal from the debate.

New N.H. poll

Suffolk, N.H (last one was June, so useless for comparisons)

Trump 27
Cruz 12
Kasich 12
Bush 11
Rubio 10
Christie 6
Carson 5
Fiorina 4
Paul 2
Rest 0

Most of it was conducted after Trump's debate decision.
http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/1_28_2016_marginals.pdf

weejonnie

david_herdson said:

On topic, a good podcast from Kieran. For now, I think the best question he asks is in relation to Sanders: if he doesn't win Iowa, is his campaign over? To which the answer is probably 'yes'. He really needs to do the double-first in order to carry enough momentum into the South to remain a serious player. (Unless Hillary gets FBI-ed).

On the GOP side, possibly the same is true in reverse: if Trump does the double then it's hard to see anyone beating him.

Well even evangelicals watch television and read articles on the internet and know what's eventually in store for them unless they can get someone strong enough to stop it.

Hence Trump's surge.

SimonStClare

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It was funny behaviour from Nigel at that time - I don't know what the strategy of calling for an earlier referendum was all about.

No, I never understood it either.

I don’t think there was any rational explanation calling for an earlier vote, I just assumed Farrage wanted to cause mischief and bask in the media lime light.

isam

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

I thought Cameron said there would be a referendum if he was PM, majority or not?

Yes he did, but that wasn't binding on the LibDems, was it? So I guess he wouldn't have been PM, unless the LibDems played ball. I don't know whether they would have done or not; I posted here that I thought they probably would, but it was by no means certain, and others disagreed.

Sorry I edited my original response.. in my (seemingly implausible now) scenario pf 321 Con, 10 UKIP, he would have been PM, there would have been a referendum, and it would have been better for LEAVE.. its not so irrational for someone who wants to LEAVE to want that is it?

Speedy

On the Dem side, 2 new Iowa polls:

NBC/WSJ

Hillary 48 0
Sanders 45 0
O'Malley 3 0

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/NBC News_WSJ_Marist Poll_Iowa Annotated Questionnaire_January 28 2016.pdf

Monmouth

Hillary 47 -8
Sanders 42 +9
O'Malley 6 0

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/f94fe349-47c3-4af3-86b9-5f50e362d1ec.pdf

Luckyguy1983

SimonStClare said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It was funny behaviour from Nigel at that time - I don't know what the strategy of calling for an earlier referendum was all about.

No, I never understood it either.

I don’t think there was any rational explanation calling for an earlier vote, I just assumed Farrage wanted to cause mischief and bask in the media lime light.

I seem to faintly remember David Davis calling for something similar, and it perhaps being vaguely linked to changes in EU law that would mean a referendum after that time could be disregarded?

But be that as it may, it's clear that Nigel didn't have the clout to extract a concession from Cameron, or even to embarrass him for his refusal to do so, so it was an odd and inconsequential message.

weejonnie

How to try not to offend people:-

" 'I want to underline that the Disney security services and police reacted immediately, and made sure the man was taken out of harm's way, if indeed he ever intended to harm anyone. We don't know at this stage.'

This is a man with 2 guns, ammunition and allegedly a koran in his luggage.

Richard_Nabavi

Danny565 said:

I still don't get what you mean by this. Why is it incumbent upon UKIP to make one indisputable case for what Britain will be like outside the UK? No-one (not even UKIP themselves) thinks UKIP are going to be the government in charge of the exit strategy. Nor frankly would I, as a potential Leaver, want them to, since my preferred option for a post-Brexit Britain would be different to UKIP's.

I don't mean UKIP alone. My suggestion was that, as soon as Cameron promised the referendum, UKIP should have switched from trying to get MPs to becoming part of an alliance, with BOOers like Dan Hannan and Kate Hoey, dedicated to building the Brexit case. They could in that case have put pressure on Labour to concede a referendum as well, by recommending to their supporters not to vote for any party which didn't promise a referendum.

The reason why I think building the Brexit case was so important is that the Remain side's best card (and probably trump card) is the 'leap into the unknown' argument. When the Leave side can't even answer the most basic questions, such as whether or not they advocate a Norway-style deal or not, they leave themselves open to being defined by their opponents.

Pulpstar

Speedy said:

Final NBC/WSJ Iowa poll:

Trump 32+8
Cruz 25 -3
Rubio 18 +5
Carson 8 -3
Bush 4 0
Rest 2 each

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/NBC News_WSJ_Marist Poll_Iowa Annotated Questionnaire_January 28 2016.pdf

Note, this poll finished the day Trump announced his withdrawal from the debate.

New N.H. poll

Suffolk, N.H (last one was June, so useless for comparisons)

Trump 27
Cruz 12
Kasich 12
Bush 11
Rubio 10
Christie 6
Carson 5
Fiorina 4
Paul 2
Rest 0

Most of it was conducted after Trump's debate decision.
http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/1_28_2016_marginals.pdf

It's a tremendous conumdrum if you want to vote AGAINST the Donald in New Hampshire.

Danny565

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

runnymede

'Without going over all Kipperish, it is in fact historically true that the founding of the original European Coal and Steel Community (the forerunner of the EU) was based on ideas which had been originally proposed under the Nazis. Some of the French and German industrialists and bureaucrats who had been involved in the wartime planning ended up heavily involved in the post-war organisation.'

And you can also find Europhiles in the UK and especially in Germany/France/Italy today using reasoning for the EU which is not that distinct from that which the Nazis used.

They wanted Europe united to fight 'Bolshevism' and the US. Now we get told we need a 'United Europe' to fight China and er...the US. The threat from the outside...always a favourite device of the the authoritarians...

Pulpstar

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

Is it better than the one with "Workie" the pensions monster ?

Danny565

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

Is it better than the one with "Workie" the pensions monster ?

I mean fair enough if a government ad is actually giving advice on how to benefit from a policy (like Help To Buy ads telling people how they can be eligible).

But this ad wasn't giving any advice; it was literally just "everyone will be getting the glorious sum of £7.20 soon, aren't we so generous".

LondonBob

Speedy said:

On topic:

Trump's event is going to be covered live from CNN and MSNBC, he couldn't get the big networks due to FCC fair time rules.
Rumour is circulating that Santorum and Huckabee will join him, while Cruz is trying to organize a boycott of Trump's event.

Meanwhile Cruz is offering $1.5 million to debate Trump, Fiorina is offering $2 million to debate Trump.

Also there is a rumour that Sen.Sessions is going to endorse Trump today.

Trump has already hired Stephen Miller, Session's trusted aide, but an official endorsement should give Trump the all important immigration issue nailed down, America's Senator. Also spoke in support of Trump regarding trade.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/25/exclusive-jeff-sessions-clarity-of-donald-trumps-position-on-trade-is-right-as-americans-lose-jobs-overseas/

Would be an important endorsement.

Wonder what the origin of that money Fiorina and Cruz are offering is?

Pulpstar

LondonBob said:

Speedy said:

On topic:

Trump's event is going to be covered live from CNN and MSNBC, he couldn't get the big networks due to FCC fair time rules.
Rumour is circulating that Santorum and Huckabee will join him, while Cruz is trying to organize a boycott of Trump's event.

Meanwhile Cruz is offering $1.5 million to debate Trump, Fiorina is offering $2 million to debate Trump.

Also there is a rumour that Sen.Sessions is going to endorse Trump today.

Trump has already hired Stephen Miller, Session's trusted aide, but an official endorsement should give Trump the all important immigration issue nailed down, America's Senator. Also spoke in support of Trump regarding trade.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/25/exclusive-jeff-sessions-clarity-of-donald-trumps-position-on-trade-is-right-as-americans-lose-jobs-overseas/

Would be an important endorsement.

Wonder what the origin of that money Fiorina and Cruz are offering is?

Goldman Sachs

Pong

OK, I'm calling peak Trump.

I'm prepared to look like a fool, but I think declaring war on Fox news could well turn out to be his undoing.

My current position is;

POTUS;

+-0 Trump,
+250 Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Bush, Cruz
+24,000 Kasich
+30,000 Bloomberg
>=+2000 everyone else

GOP;

-1 Trump
-1 Kasich
+300 Bush, Rubio
+600 Cruz
+900 Christie
+38,000 Paul Ryan
+ 6000 everyone else

Iowa GOP;

-45 Trump, Cruz
+1000 everyone else (come on Rubio!)

Speedy

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

Final NBC/WSJ Iowa poll:

Trump 32+8
Cruz 25 -3
Rubio 18 +5
Carson 8 -3
Bush 4 0
Rest 2 each

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/NBC News_WSJ_Marist Poll_Iowa Annotated Questionnaire_January 28 2016.pdf

Note, this poll finished the day Trump announced his withdrawal from the debate.

New N.H. poll

Suffolk, N.H (last one was June, so useless for comparisons)

Trump 27
Cruz 12
Kasich 12
Bush 11
Rubio 10
Christie 6
Carson 5
Fiorina 4
Paul 2
Rest 0

Most of it was conducted after Trump's debate decision.
http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/1_28_2016_marginals.pdf

It's a tremendous conumdrum if you want to vote AGAINST the Donald in New Hampshire.

Trump could win N.H. with 30%, with 4 other candidates in joined 2nd place with 10% each.

None of them are going to withdraw at least before N.H. and potentially S.C. , and why should they? Since all of them are coming second in N.H.

watford30

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

Is it better than the one with "Workie" the pensions monster ?

I mean fair enough if a government ad is actually giving advice on how to benefit from a policy (like Help To Buy ads telling people how they can be eligible).

But this ad wasn't giving any advice; it was literally just "everyone will be getting the glorious sum of £7.20 soon, aren't we so generous".

Sounds no more political than the Tax Credits adverts that Labour ran.

Luckyguy1983

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

I still don't get what you mean by this. Why is it incumbent upon UKIP to make one indisputable case for what Britain will be like outside the UK? No-one (not even UKIP themselves) thinks UKIP are going to be the government in charge of the exit strategy. Nor frankly would I, as a potential Leaver, want them to, since my preferred option for a post-Brexit Britain would be different to UKIP's.

I don't mean UKIP alone. My suggestion was that, as soon as Cameron promised the referendum, UKIP should have switched from trying to get MPs to becoming part of an alliance, with BOOers like Dan Hannan and Kate Hoey, dedicated to building the Brexit case. They could in that case have put pressure on Labour to concede a referendum as well, by recommending to their supporters not to vote for any party which didn't promise a referendum.

The reason why I think building the Brexit case was so important is that the Remain side's best card (and probably trump card) is the 'leap into the unknown' argument. When the Leave side can't even answer the most basic questions, such as whether or not they advocate a Norway-style deal or not, they leave themselves open to being defined by their opponents.

Will we have our own currency?
Leave: Yes
Remain: Probably

Will we have our own army and diplomatic service?
Leave: Yes
Remain: Don't know

Will the economy/house prices/inflation/fuel/mortgages go up or down?
Both: No F**ing clue

Will immigration be controlled?
Leave: Simplistic to imagine we won't have to make compromises, but ultimately UK's choice
Remain: No choice, ultimately the only control is whether people fancy coming or not

How will TTIP affect the UK and its services?
Leave: It won't. Any trade deals will be negotiated by the UK Government
Remain: Who knows?

Don't see how remain is in any way a more secure medium to long term option for the UK, or why europhiles should be any the less obliged to present the way they see the relationship developing. We might even find SPLITS between the swivelly-eyed federalists and the soft skeptics.

Danny565

watford30 said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

Is it better than the one with "Workie" the pensions monster ?

I mean fair enough if a government ad is actually giving advice on how to benefit from a policy (like Help To Buy ads telling people how they can be eligible).

But this ad wasn't giving any advice; it was literally just "everyone will be getting the glorious sum of £7.20 soon, aren't we so generous".

Sounds no more political than the Tax Credits adverts that Labour ran.

From memory, they were informing people how to apply for them.

Speedy

Jim AcostaVerified account ‏@Acosta 22m22 minutes ago
Scoop: Huckabee will be attending the Trump vets event tonight, a Huckabee spokesman tells me.

I told you so (my sources seem reliable so far today).
Trump is peeling the smaller candidates into his side.

Richard_Nabavi

@Luckyguy1983 - Believe me, that is not how it will look to those voters who actually matter, i.e. those who might be persuaded either way.

Luckyguy1983

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

Is it better than the one with "Workie" the pensions monster ?

I mean fair enough if a government ad is actually giving advice on how to benefit from a policy (like Help To Buy ads telling people how they can be eligible).

But this ad wasn't giving any advice; it was literally just "everyone will be getting the glorious sum of £7.20 soon, aren't we so generous".

Yes, it's nakedly political, and as someone's mentioned, they've taken their cue from Blair/Brown. Annoys me too. Especially in the 'austerity' era, I'm annoyed that the Government should be supporting the advertising industry and the TV industry in this way - let them tighten their belts too.

MP_SE

Casino_Royale said:

weejonnie said:

taffys said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12127829/David-Cameron-being-offered-watered-down-emergency-brake-on-migrants-by-Brussels.html

Horrible headline for Cameron in the telegraph.

The EU are trying the old - You give up something and we'll look at what you want.

Fool me once ...

If we vote Remain we will deserve everything we get.

I am kind of looking forward to it. The backlash when the concessions are exposed as being meaningless will be entertaining. All the phoney Eurosceptic MPs will be exposed and will be answerable to their constituents.

Pulpstar

Pong said:

OK, I'm calling peak Trump.

I'm prepared to look like a fool, but I think declaring war on Fox news could well turn out to be his undoing.

My current position is;

POTUS;

+-0 Trump,
+250 Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Bush, Cruz
+24,000 Kasich
+30,000 Bloomberg
>=+2000 everyone else

GOP;

-1 Trump
-1 Kasich
+300 Bush, Rubio
+600 Cruz
+900 Christie
+38,000 Paul Ryan
+ 6000 everyone else

Iowa GOP;

-45 Trump, Cruz
+1000 everyone else (come on Rubio!)

Very healthy

Richard_Nabavi

Pong said:

....

POTUS;

+-0 Trump,
+250 Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Bush, Cruz
+24,000 Kasich
+30,000 Bloomberg
>=+2000 everyone else

Nice position (better than mine!).

Why not lay off a bit of Bloomberg (the current 75 to 80 or so is getting a bit short IMO) and use the funds to back Trump - just in case?

richardDodd

Every COI film I ever worked on..and there were a lot of them..was a blatant propaganda piece for the party in power...paid for by the taxpayer..

Pulpstar

Donald J. Trump Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump 1m1 minute ago

Tennessee GOP Poll
http://www.MTSUPoll.org
Trump 32.7%
Cruz 16.5%
Carson 6.6%
Rubio 5.3%
Christie 2.4%
Jeb 1.6%

weejonnie

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

The net effect of this is that schools/ authorities are going to put people on term-time contracts, rather than annual contracts, to reduce overheads, that many staff are going to be made redundant and my accountants was commenting that everyone will want pay differentials kept, so additional wages costs are going to escalate.

Speedy

Pulpstar said:

Donald J. Trump Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump 1m1 minute ago

Tennessee GOP Poll
http://www.MTSUPoll.org
Trump 32.7%
Cruz 16.5%
Carson 6.6%
Rubio 5.3%
Christie 2.4%
Jeb 1.6%

Tennessee doesn't matter yet, right now it's all Iowa Iowa Iowa, with a little bit of New Hampshire.

malcolmg

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

Is it better than the one with "Workie" the pensions monster ?

That has to be the most pathetic banal cretinous advert of all time. Whoever passed that must have been deaf , dumb and blind.

Luckyguy1983

Richard_Nabavi said:

@Luckyguy1983 - Believe me, that is not how it will look to those voters who actually matter, i.e. those who might be persuaded either way.

Perhaps. I think views on the EU are now set - anyone who thinks new information coming to the table will change things is in my view wrong. People have an accumulation of negative perceptions of both sides. The side that wins (as in all marketing), will be the side that utilises these existing perceptions, going with the grain to create a narrative that motivates their side and demotivates the other. I know this sounds obvious, but it will mean it is useless for the Leave side to think the EU just needs to be 'exposed' with some smoking gun of corruption or waste figures - if people were going to have 'had enough' of the EU they would be determined leavers by now.

What I think they should do is steal Remain's fear-mongering clothes - to which I believe they have just as much right. This may not be enough to fully persuade the people you mention, but it may be enough to dampen their spirits and keep them at home if Remain itself is presented as a fearful option.

To this end, once again, Remain should be presented as a COMMITMENT to the EU - a contract you will be signing. 'Before signing with the EU, read the small print'. Not just a commitment, a BRAVE commitment - till death us do part. We like lethargy and comfort zones, but we hate and fear commitment. Leave should be presented as something people should vote for, just to avoid the EU running rampant.

Leave must also do its best to undermine the undoubted advantage of 'authority' recommending remain and talking about the 'dangers' of leaving, by cultivating distrust in those figures' motivations. Then every fatcat, politician, or corporate sponsored think-tank that advocates remain becomes further evidence of a corporate stitch up.

If Remain can do those they stand a chance imo.

TGOHF

Why we should be getting more from the EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12127776/Brexit-would-trigger-disintegration-of-the-EU-not-the-UK-say-Barclays.html

and presciently


"But if Britain voted for and exit and "politics in the EU turned for the worse, the UK may be seen as a safe haven from those risks, reversing the euro's appreciation and putting significant downward pressure" on the single curency, said Marvin Barth of Barclays.

"In that environment, Scottish voters could be even less inclined to leave the relative safety of the UK for an increasingly uncertain EU, further reversing sterling's appreciation." "

felix

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

There were plenty of ads for tax credits. Get over yourself.

HYUFD

Speedy said:

Jim AcostaVerified account ‏@Acosta 22m22 minutes ago
Scoop: Huckabee will be attending the Trump vets event tonight, a Huckabee spokesman tells me.

I told you so (my sources seem reliable so far today).
Trump is peeling the smaller candidates into his side.

Interesting, a Trump-Huckabee ticket is with a punt, Huckabee is a southerner and social conservative which would bring balance to his ticket and he is also one of the few GOP contenders Trump has not yet insulted

malcolmg

RobD said:

Second!
Like a good Scottish Tory

Rob, think you meant dreamer like good Scottish London Tories

Pong

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pong said:

....

POTUS;

+-0 Trump,
+250 Clinton, Sanders, Rubio, Bush, Cruz
+24,000 Kasich
+30,000 Bloomberg
>=+2000 everyone else

Nice position (better than mine!).

Why not lay off a bit of Bloomberg (the current 75 to 80 or so is getting a bit short IMO) and use the funds to back Trump - just in case?

Thanks.

I actually laid off quite a bit of Bloomberg at between 31/1 & 55/1, then got cold feet and rebacked at 59/1-89/1

Who knows what the current odds should be, but if it's looking like sanders vs trump or cruz by March I think he'll jump into the race. That looks like a ~9/1 scenario to me.

Against Sanders/Trump or Cruz, he'd be a ~4/1 shot.

4/1 x 9/1= 50/1

Sunil_Prasannan

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

Incidentally, I just saw an advert on TV for "the Government's new National Living Wage".

Does this meet advertising guidelines? It seemed pretty much a shameless Tory PPB, not a public information ad.

Is it better than the one with "Workie" the pensions monster ?

Han Solo: "Afraid I was gonna leave without giving you a goodbye kiss?"
Princess Leia: "I'd just as soon as kiss a "Workie"!"
Han Solo: "I can arrange that! You could use a good kiss!"

MaxPB

Wow the BBC aren't even trying to hide their bias. Their report on the GDP figures is terrible. It's very negative to basically neutral figures.

TGOHF

MaxPB said:

Wow the BBC aren't even trying to hide their bias. Their report on the GDP figures is terrible. It's very negative to basically neutral figures.

"Slows to 0.5% (Oct 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34646496

"Steady at 0.7%" (Aug 2015)

So 0.2% is the difference between steady and negative