The self importance on this site is astonishing, its interesting and good fun but absolutely irrelevant in framing the electorate's views.
Fuck me, a few weeks back I said I didn't care that Putin had killed one of his spies and somebody said that as result of that they weren't voting Leave.
I was tempted to pop round with a bunch of flowers and some Lucozade.
You must admit that it shows you for the sort of person you are.
See what I mean? Lighten up you dope, nobody takes you seriously.
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
I think that's right, if both sides of the argument would have the grace not to treat this weapons system as a bloody Ark of the Covenant. It's possible to be pro or con and still be a reasonable Labour supporter, and whatever the majority party view there will be MPs who disagree and won't vote that way. Too bad, we have to live with it.
The polling shows that voters, if actually asked, look around for a middle option, which is why the "subs without missiles", which even I find a bit hard to explain, is quite a popular option.
I hesitate to intrude into private grief. But given that Corbyn has made it perfectly clear that he would on no account ever use nuclear weapons, whether the subs are armed with them or not is irrelevant. There is no deterrence even if they were built.
There is nothing to agree on and no point having any sort of defence review and the views of those who disagree with Corbyn are of no consequence. If Corbyn were to become PM any enemy of Britain would know that it would not have to fear any sort of nuclear retaliation.
The argument is done in Labour. Unilateralism won the moment the membership voted Corbyn in as leader.
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree, and in practice nobody is going to get ejected for opposing EU membership - e.g. Kate Hoey's been a sceptic for ages and she likes modified fox-hunting and Trident too, and she's still fine. The Labour Party, for all its faults, doesn't normally do witch-hunts. But of course there's a risk that a non-member Labour voter will be annoyed that whenever he sees a Labour speaker, he's a pro-EU zealot.
This is actually an issue where Corbyn is closer to the mainstream than most Europhiles like me - his view is essentially "Yes, there isn't a sensible alternative, but it's bureaucratic, not very democratic and in thrall to big business, so let's stay in and work with Continental socialists to make it more democratic and progressive".
I'm naturally left of centre but I do find it offputting when Labour MPs say things like 'there isn't a sensible alternative'. I mean, 85% of the rest of the world exists outside EU type structures. Fair enough if you think we should stay in the EU, but treating leaving as being nonsensical makes you sound like a zealot.
I just think some parties develop huge attachments to some positions that become shibboleths irrationally. For the Republicans, its guns and abortion. For Labour its the EU.
I think feeling about the EU is strong amongst those who want to Leave it if they are willing to state as such to opinion pollsters that they're so unhappy with it they'd break a 40 year economic union.
The argument is a total non-sequitur: if you asked me what was of *central* importance to my life I would list where I live (housing), how I get to work (transport), my job (the economy) and my future.
'My future' could include a whole host of issues including adequate education (for my kids) my pension and the future shape of this country, including immigration and the EU, crime (if it affects me) or family policy and benefits (if I rely on it)
Just because, if prompted for a bread&butter question, somebody doesn't cite the EU in the top 3/4 answers doesn't mean it doesn't matter very deeply.
How else are we going to judge how deeply subjects matter to people if not by looking at polling on the subject?
I'm not a huge fan of gut instinct, particularly when it's being advocated by those who have a strong emotional interest in deciding that gut instinct points in a given direction.
According to your logic, here's a list of other issues the public couldn't give a toss about - all below Europe in last month's Mori Issues Index: long-term care for the elderly, drug abuse, low pay, animal rights, poverty, nuclear weapons, race relations, taxation, trade unions and constitutional reform.
Do you really think that's true?
Not give a toss? No. Do the public think those things are vitally important to raise now? Well, no, not really, given where things stand now. Some of them are concerns for the future and some of them are being dealt with adequately to the public's satisfaction (or at least not sufficiently to the public's dissatisfaction to merit raising right now as a pressing concern).
I have to say that I'm taken aback at how resistant Leavers are to the idea that their concern might be a niche interest. The volume and intensity of their feeling on the subject deafens them to the fact that most other people simply don't feel as intensely about the subject as they do. But they don't.
There's evidently a part two to this piece to be written.
but there is a serious cost in saying "to be in my party, you must believe in/reject X as well", and one shouldn't do it too often.
This is, in my view, a big risk of Labour's stance of seemingly saying that support for the EU is an article of faith for the party and that no-one who wants to Leave is welcome.
The Tories' stance of allowing divisions, while it will mean "split" headlines in the short term, could mean by the next election they can say to voters that it doesn't matter what side of the fence people were on on the EU, they can still vote Tory if they agree with them on most other issues.
I agree, and in practice nobody is going to get ejected for opposing EU membership - e.g. Kate Hoey's been a sceptic for ages and she likes modified fox-hunting and Trident too, and she's still fine. The Labour Party, for all its faults, doesn't normally do witch-hunts. But of course there's a risk that a non-member Labour voter will be annoyed that whenever he sees a Labour speaker, he's a pro-EU zealot.
This is actually an issue where Corbyn is closer to the mainstream than most Europhiles like me - his view is essentially "Yes, there isn't a sensible alternative, but it's bureaucratic, not very democratic and in thrall to big business, so let's stay in and work with Continental socialists to make it more democratic and progressive".
Another problem for Labour people is that anyone supporting Leave will be on the same platform - metaphorically speaking - as Nigel Farage, IDS and the Daily Mail. This would be very hard to defend to a Labour audience
I agree with that - it feels a bit weird being in the same camp as the swivel eyed. But we were allies with Stalin in the past, so in comparison Farage is a kitten.
Indeed. But we were allied with Stalin against a genocidal force which was an existential threat to our existence as a nation. Not even the most fanatical outer would say that of the EU (although some come pretty close).
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
I think that's right, if both sides of the argument would have the grace not to treat this weapons system as a bloody Ark of the Covenant. It's possible to be pro or con and still be a reasonable Labour supporter, and whatever the majority party view there will be MPs who disagree and won't vote that way. Too bad, we have to live with it.
The polling shows that voters, if actually asked, look around for a middle option, which is why the "subs without missiles", which even I find a bit hard to explain, is quite a popular option.
Missiles without subs might be a better deterrent.
We could put the silos in Broxtowe. Where is the sainted Nicola's constituency? Only joking...
The self importance on this site is astonishing, its interesting and good fun but absolutely irrelevant in framing the electorate's views.
I am particularly amused how any even passing reference to events between 1939-1945, even if not explicitly to do with any particular event, made by someone that is known to be sympathetic to LEAVE is spun by certain members of this forum into a fatuous attempt to describe OUTERs are Nazis (or their fellow travellers) and how this is used to trying to swamp any valid point made for the next hour or so.
Outer: [Comparisons between Cameron and Chamberlain] Mr X : So this is about Nazi's is it Outer: No, Dave'e negotiation was crap Mr X: I think you like Nazis Outer: The Handbrake isn't to hot either Mr X: Is it a national socialist handbrake ? Outer: I had pizza for dinner Mr X: I better it was swastika shaped. etc
Mr Meeks' piece is accurate imo, the wider electorate don't care much about the EU, but the wider electorate don't care much about politics, most trudge to the polling station and vote but without any great passion.
What has surprised me is people on this site, this thread even, saying they won't be voting in suchandsuch way because somebody they don't like is voting that way. So much for serious debate and analysis.
I'm interested in the way the argument is developing, the Remainers have moved from confident, to complacent to faux ambivalence, they really need to up their game but I'm not sure how they can or will.
Oh shut up whining ffs do you really think anybody changes their mind after reading what's said on here? Its the internet, get over yourself. You're a self confessed Cameroon, it can't be easy as you see that everything I've said about the buffoon is coming true. Direct your faux outrage at him, not those of us who saw through him years ago.
I'm flattered that you consider me to be influential, but you're misguided, the views on here are entrenched.
Keep score, count how many anti PM posts I make compared with how many anti Ukip ones you see, then tally up how often you hear me whining.
You lot want it both ways.
Are you mad? Do you seriously believe that anything anybody says on here affects voting intentions? And you call me arrogant.
I come on here to read the sycophantic nonsense from tribalists, I find it interesting, to suggest that I, or anybody else, frames opinion is just bollox.
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
Indeed, and now being 1965 I'm sure the public will still wear not proceeding with Polaris.
Oh, wait....
I am aware that Labour did not stick to its Polaris pledge - but the point is that the commitment did not prevent the party from winning the election!
You've missed my point - it was 51 years ago.
The public are pro nuclear weapons. The Labour leadership are so far removed from public views on defence that they will never be taken seriously on any other issue.
The public was almost certainly pro nuclear in 1964 too , but the key point is that the issue was not sufficiently salient to cost Labour the election. If that was true at the height of the Cold War - just 2 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - it is difficult to imagine it as a more salient issue in 2020.
If Corbyn were to become PM any enemy of Britain would know that it would not have to fear any sort of nuclear retaliation.
The argument is done in Labour. Unilateralism won the moment the membership voted Corbyn in as leader.
The enemies of Germany don't have to fear any sort of nuclear blowback either. The PLP needs to accept the views of the membership methinks.
As you say, the argument is done.
The views of the membership are irrelevant. It's the view of the Leader and putative PM which matter. If he says he won't use them that's it even if the membership were to think otherwise. It's not as if the Big Red Button (or whatever) gets passed round to the next in line.
Apparently Gibralter will be voting in the EU referendum despite not being part of the UK.
Commonwealth citizens resident in Gibraltar don’t normally get the chance to vote in Westminster elections as no British Overseas Territories are represented in Parliament. However, unlike the other British Overseas Territories, Gibraltar is a part of the European Union, and therefore they will be allowed to have a say in the outcome.
Whichever way the vote goes in a few months, life will continue. The Earth will continue revolving around the Sun. People will be worried about their jobs, or where their kids will go to school. Some will be undergoing cancer treatment, and others will be daydreaming about holidays.
Most people don't care about the EU.
And people who care about the EU only care insofar as they can use it as a proxy for some other prejudice . I am not going to vote on the same side as anybody comparing gay marriage to the invasion of Poland.
If Cameron was Putin then you'd be London Bob, only less articulate.
If my auntie had genitals she'd be my uncle. But funnier.
Mr. Pulpstar, I'm a little surprised TTIP hasn't been mentioned more, particularly by those on the left.
TTIP is one of those area of cognitive dissonance for Labour. Soldiers can't be heroic, Terrorists can't be evil, Muslim's cant be criminals, immigration cant cost jobs/wages/use services, the EU can't be a corporatist racket, and EU treaties are universal good and wholesome.
If Corbyn were to become PM any enemy of Britain would know that it would not have to fear any sort of nuclear retaliation.
The argument is done in Labour. Unilateralism won the moment the membership voted Corbyn in as leader.
The enemies of Germany don't have to fear any sort of nuclear blowback either. The PLP needs to accept the views of the membership methinks.
As you say, the argument is done.
The views of the membership are irrelevant. It's the view of the Leader and putative PM which matter. If he says he won't use them that's it even if the membership were to think otherwise. It's not as if the Big Red Button (or whatever) gets passed round to the next in line.
Hold on, you just said the argument in Labour was "done", I'm agreeing with you !
The membership voted for Corbyn, who is known to be a unilateralist. I'd guess the Labour membership is anti-Trident renewal from that :@)
The self importance on this site is astonishing, its interesting and good fun but absolutely irrelevant in framing the electorate's views.
I am particularly amused how any even passing reference to events between 1939-1945, even if not explicitly to do with any particular event, made by someone that is known to be sympathetic to LEAVE is spun by certain members of this forum into a fatuous attempt to describe OUTERs are Nazis (or their fellow travellers) and how this is used to trying to swamp any valid point made for the next hour or so.
Outer: [Comparisons between Cameron and Chamberlain] Mr X : So this is about Nazi's is it Outer: No, Dave'e negotiation was crap Mr X: I think you like Nazis Outer: The Handbrake isn't to hot either Mr X: Is it a national socialist handbrake ? Outer: I had pizza for dinner Mr X: I better it was swastika shaped. etc
Well quite. The Remain argument was originally about 3m lost jobs, then it was about car firms packing up, then the sharing of intelligence, now the day after we Leave war commences.
Like my only political hero, Martin Luther King, I have a dream. Its that Cameron sees sense and campaigns to Leave, mainly because its the right decision but also because the sound of handbrakes on here would be deafening.
Whichever way the vote goes in a few months, life will continue. The Earth will continue revolving around the Sun. People will be worried about their jobs, or where their kids will go to school. Some will be undergoing cancer treatment, and others will be daydreaming about holidays.
Most people don't care about the EU.
And people who care about the EU only care insofar as they can use it as a proxy for some other prejudice . I am not going to vote on the same side as anybody comparing gay marriage to the invasion of Poland.
If Cameron was Putin then you'd be London Bob, only less articulate.
If my auntie had genitals she'd be my uncle. But funnier.
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
Indeed, and now being 1965 I'm sure the public will still wear not proceeding with Polaris.
Oh, wait....
I am aware that Labour did not stick to its Polaris pledge - but the point is that the commitment did not prevent the party from winning the election!
You've missed my point - it was 51 years ago.
The public are pro nuclear weapons. The Labour leadership are so far removed from public views on defence that they will never be taken seriously on any other issue.
The public was almost certainly pro nuclear in 1964 too , but the key point is that the issue was not sufficiently salient to cost Labour the election. If that was true at the height of the Cold War - just 2 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - it is difficult to imagine it as a more salient issue in 2020.
Wilson won by just 4 seats, and after a long stretch of Tory rule which had become seen to be stuck in the past (and replete with the odd scandal). The Tory leader was Douglas-Home.
Not sure this is a good example to use for a basis as to what a non-nukes Labour party will do in 2020.
Whichever way the vote goes in a few months, life will continue. The Earth will continue revolving around the Sun. People will be worried about their jobs, or where their kids will go to school. Some will be undergoing cancer treatment, and others will be daydreaming about holidays.
Most people don't care about the EU.
And people who care about the EU only care insofar as they can use it as a proxy for some other prejudice . I am not going to vote on the same side as anybody comparing gay marriage to the invasion of Poland.
If Cameron was Putin then you'd be London Bob, only less articulate.
If my auntie had genitals she'd be my uncle. But funnier.
Whichever way the vote goes in a few months, life will continue. The Earth will continue revolving around the Sun. People will be worried about their jobs, or where their kids will go to school. Some will be undergoing cancer treatment, and others will be daydreaming about holidays.
Most people don't care about the EU.
And people who care about the EU only care insofar as they can use it as a proxy for some other prejudice . I am not going to vote on the same side as anybody comparing gay marriage to the invasion of Poland.
If Cameron was Putin then you'd be London Bob, only less articulate.
If my auntie had genitals she'd be my uncle. But funnier.
Can I just say that Richard Nabavi et al have been a sugnificant influence in persuading me to vote leave. I was on the fence but have now been persuaded by the failure of remain to address the risks of staying in. Many thanks.
The views of the membership are irrelevant. It's the view of the Leader and putative PM which matter. If he says he won't use them that's it even if the membership were to think otherwise. It's not as if the Big Red Button (or whatever) gets passed round to the next in line.
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
Indeed, and now being 1965 I'm sure the public will still wear not proceeding with Polaris.
Oh, wait....
I am aware that Labour did not stick to its Polaris pledge - but the point is that the commitment did not prevent the party from winning the election!
You've missed my point - it was 51 years ago.
The public are pro nuclear weapons. The Labour leadership are so far removed from public views on defence that they will never be taken seriously on any other issue.
The public was almost certainly pro nuclear in 1964 too , but the key point is that the issue was not sufficiently salient to cost Labour the election. If that was true at the height of the Cold War - just 2 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - it is difficult to imagine it as a more salient issue in 2020.
Wilson won by just 4 seats, and after a long stretch of Tory rule which had become seen to be stuck in the past (and replete with the odd scandal). The Tory leader was Douglas-Home.
Not sure this is a good example to use for a basis as to what a non-nukes Labour party will do in 2020.
I think my point regarding the salience of the issue is valid.
That is quite significant; though it's obviously a point Leave would had to get to eventually, it's good for them that they seem to have managed to get there sooner.
Once Gove decides which way to jump then Vote Leave (sans Cummings) can row in behind as well.
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
Indeed, and now being 1965 I'm sure the public will still wear not proceeding with Polaris.
Oh, wait....
I am aware that Labour did not stick to its Polaris pledge - but the point is that the commitment did not prevent the party from winning the election!
You've missed my point - it was 51 years ago.
The public are pro nuclear weapons. The Labour leadership are so far removed from public views on defence that they will never be taken seriously on any other issue.
The public was almost certainly pro nuclear in 1964 too , but the key point is that the issue was not sufficiently salient to cost Labour the election. If that was true at the height of the Cold War - just 2 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - it is difficult to imagine it as a more salient issue in 2020.
Wilson won by just 4 seats, and after a long stretch of Tory rule which had become seen to be stuck in the past (and replete with the odd scandal). The Tory leader was Douglas-Home.
Not sure this is a good example to use for a basis as to what a non-nukes Labour party will do in 2020.
Wilson was so confident in his party, both in parliament and outside it that he effectively upgraded Polaris in secret (the Chavaline projct), spending a large sum in the process. He simply told the fullcabinet that it was a 'minor modification to the existing system'.
The views of the membership are irrelevant. It's the view of the Leader and putative PM which matter. If he says he won't use them that's it even if the membership were to think otherwise. It's not as if the Big Red Button (or whatever) gets passed round to the next in line.
Don't give him ideas!
"Chief of the Defence Staff, I have a letter here from Matthew of Nuneaton who thinks that under the circumstances we should launch a limited strike of perhaps twelve 300 kiloton warheads on St Petersburg..."
I suspect much the same thing is true of nuclear disarmament in terms of its salience with voters. People tend to forget that Labour won the 1964 election despite a promise not to proceed with Polaris. The Tories made a big issue of it and it was at the height of the Cold War - just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis and three years after the Berlin Wall was built. If it was not decisive then, it is difficult to see it being so in 2020.
Indeed, and now being 1965 I'm sure the public will still wear not proceeding with Polaris.
Oh, wait....
I am aware that Labour did not stick to its Polaris pledge - but the point is that the commitment did not prevent the party from winning the election!
You've missed my point - it was 51 years ago.
The public are pro nuclear weapons. The Labour leadership are so far removed from public views on defence that they will never be taken seriously on any other issue.
The public was almost certainly pro nuclear in 1964 too , but the key point is that the issue was not sufficiently salient to cost Labour the election. If that was true at the height of the Cold War - just 2 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - it is difficult to imagine it as a more salient issue in 2020.
Except that the 1964 manifesto did not promise to abandon polaris. It certainly criticised the Nassau agreement in strong terms but the only pledge was
"We are not prepared any longer to waste the country's resources on endless duplication of strategic nuclear weapons. We shall propose the re-negotiation of the Nassau agreement. Our stress will be on the strengthening of our conventional regular forces so that we can contribute our share to Nato defence and also fulfil our peacekeeping commitments to the Commonwealth and the United Nations...."
Which was classic Wilsonian fudge to keep all wings of the party united on a lowest common dominator. By 1964, thanks to Gaitskell, Labour was demonstrably multilateralist (as was Wilson himself). That is simply not the case today.
No, I've produced plenty of data and arguments. But you've chosen to ignore it, and you've produced plenty of emotion and guesses yourself as your thread header details.
You can continue to whistle in the wind saying no-one cares about the EU, and I'll continue to ignore it. It's much more complex than relying on a Mori Index ranking as has been tediously debated on here many a time before.
I'll start reading again when you have some useful insights to offer.
In the meantime, I have better things to do with my life.
The article seems to contradict the tweet in one important respect: the tweet says that Vote.Leave back GO, but the article doesn't mention that and instead says Leave.EU will back it. Is that a mistake, or does it mean that both Vote.Leave and Leave.EU are on board?
Under the rules, the designated campaign can spend up to £7m. UKIP as a political party can spend a further £4.4m, And all other the campaign groups sitting underneath - and Mr Farage told me there may be up to 40 of those in Britain - will be able to spend £700,000 each.
The article seems to contradict the tweet in one important respect: the tweet says that Vote.Leave back GO, but the article doesn't mention that and instead says Leave.EU will back it. Is that a mistake, or does it mean that both Vote.Leave and Leave.EU are on board?
with Amazon backing, this might be something to watch. I might even wipe the dust off my old 3D assets (if I can convert them, that is...)
It's a trap to get you locked into an AWS backend. Far better to go for UnrealEngine or Unity - especially as they have huge levels of suport and a community around them.
That sounds intriguing. I'm not technically adept (the extent of my building is a minor fiddle with RPG Maker XP and building some areas in a MUD), but I may give that a quick look. A free mini-game revolving around Sir Edric might be good marketing, time (and my potato-like technical aptitude) notwithstanding.
If you do make a game and want someone to help with the writing, give me a bell.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Alistair, that seems to be the devil in the detail of the modern world. Alas.
Under the rules, the designated campaign can spend up to £7m. UKIP as a political party can spend a further £4.4m, And all other the campaign groups sitting underneath - and Mr Farage told me there may be up to 40 of those in Britain - will be able to spend £700,000 each.
Grassroots Out is smart branding and clever way to turn negativity of no big beasts into positives!!
Quite a good name... setting it up as Big Business & Establishment vs the little people is a decent tactic, as Michael Portillo has said
Seems like a merge between Leave.EU and Grassroots Out... VoteLeave seem to be playing the game that REMAIN would like them to in my opinion; high minded irrelevant issues that don't resonate with the public
Any thoughts on the PL betting? As a Spurs fan I find it hard to be objective, on betfair they're 5/1, Arsenal around 9/4 despite that lot still to visit WHL. I keep writing Leicester off, City seem to have shot themselves in the foot.
Any thoughts on the PL betting? As a Spurs fan I find it hard to be objective, on betfair they're 5/1, Arsenal around 9/4 despite that lot still to visit WHL. I keep writing Leicester off, City seem to have shot themselves in the foot.
I was very surprised to see Arsenal season points quote 3.5 higher than that of Spurs...
A big pro gambler I know says those two are the value bets, Man City and Leicester too short
Vardy value at 5/2 top Prem IMO and if anyone has Bet Victor accounts please get in touch
I'm naturally left of centre but I do find it offputting when Labour MPs say things like 'there isn't a sensible alternative'. I mean, 85% of the rest of the world exists outside EU type structures. Fair enough if you think we should stay in the EU, but treating leaving as being nonsensical makes you sound like a zealot.
I just think some parties develop huge attachments to some positions that become shibboleths irrationally. For the Republicans, its guns and abortion. For Labour its the EU.
Well, I'm more of a Europhile than Jeremy (and it was his position that I was describing) - I positively like the EU, which Jeremy doesn't especially. But the starting point seems to me to be that the world is broadly divided into continental trading blocs at different stages of development, and we're physically in one of them.
It's certainly possible to opt to be outside all of them, but I do question whether it's a sensible option, unless one really hates the EU. It's a bit like the idea that we sometimes chuck around that London could be a separate city-state - yes, it could, but it's not obviously a good idea.
Any thoughts on the PL betting? As a Spurs fan I find it hard to be objective, on betfair they're 5/1, Arsenal around 9/4 despite that lot still to visit WHL. I keep writing Leicester off, City seem to have shot themselves in the foot.
As an Arsenal fan I couldn't bring myself to do it but I thought about backing Spurs as long ago as November. They are the most complete team and seem to be playing really well.
I'm generally quite good at knowing when Arsenal are likely to trip up, and I might regret this, but I don't think Sunday will be one of them. That said, I think Leicester have a great chance to win it. What will be critical for them is putting away the average teams over the next few weeks.
Of course it's not. Tories, and even worse Kippers froth at the mouth about it and most people couldn't give a toss. I just hope that it doesn't put them off turning out to vote Remain. I'm resigned to the fact that come the 24th June they'll still be frothing about it.
Any thoughts on the PL betting? As a Spurs fan I find it hard to be objective, on betfair they're 5/1, Arsenal around 9/4 despite that lot still to visit WHL. I keep writing Leicester off, City seem to have shot themselves in the foot.
As an Arsenal fan I couldn't bring myself to do it but I thought about backing Spurs as long ago as November. They are the most complete team and seem to be playing really well.
I'm generally quite good at knowing when Arsenal are likely to trip up, and I might regret this, but I don't think Sunday will be one of them. That said, I think Leicester have a great chance to win it. What will be critical for them is putting away the average teams over the next few weeks.
A lot of people in the betting game use analytics (shots on target/quality of chance created/xG) as a big pointer towards future performance. Currently Arsenal are streets ahead, with Leicester average and Spurs poor.. so if they are right, the Arsenal are due to give a few good hidings while the others may regress
I'm naturally left of centre but I do find it offputting when Labour MPs say things like 'there isn't a sensible alternative'. I mean, 85% of the rest of the world exists outside EU type structures. Fair enough if you think we should stay in the EU, but treating leaving as being nonsensical makes you sound like a zealot.
I just think some parties develop huge attachments to some positions that become shibboleths irrationally. For the Republicans, its guns and abortion. For Labour its the EU.
Well, I'm more of a Europhile than Jeremy (and it was his position that I was describing) - I positively like the EU, which Jeremy doesn't especially. But the starting point seems to me to be that the world is broadly divided into continental trading blocs at different stages of development, and we're physically in one of them.
It's certainly possible to opt to be outside all of them, but I do question whether it's a sensible option, unless one really hates the EU. It's a bit like the idea that we sometimes chuck around that London could be a separate city-state - yes, it could, but it's not obviously a good idea.
But the idea that there are no sensible reasons, other than hating the EU, to opt out is also irrational. There are plenty of sensible reasons for opting out, Nick, and you know there are. Belittling them detracts from whatever arguments you have for remaining.
As in all complex issues, there are trade-offs. You have decided that, for you, the trade-offs argue for Remain. For many others, myself included, the trade-offs argue for Leave. Are you doubting my intellect or reason simply because I make a judgment different from yours?
Any thoughts on the PL betting? As a Spurs fan I find it hard to be objective, on betfair they're 5/1, Arsenal around 9/4 despite that lot still to visit WHL. I keep writing Leicester off, City seem to have shot themselves in the foot.
As an Arsenal fan I couldn't bring myself to do it but I thought about backing Spurs as long ago as November. They are the most complete team and seem to be playing really well.
I'm generally quite good at knowing when Arsenal are likely to trip up, and I might regret this, but I don't think Sunday will be one of them. That said, I think Leicester have a great chance to win it. What will be critical for them is putting away the average teams over the next few weeks.
Who'd have thought we'd be having this conversation, I find it impossible to evaluate because I've disregarded Leicester all the while. If Spurs win, or at least a positive draw at City on sunday they could really kick on. I hope Poch picks 11 out of the crowd for the Europa games.
“The aim is to think about the future of Europe,” another diplomatic source told POLITICO of the meeting, which has not been promoted in the media, who added that their “Plan A” is to push Europe forward on the same track, not a two-track.
LBC More than 2,800 operations have been cancelled ahead of a 24-hour strike by junior doctors. Is this fair? https://t.co/maY6BQU3tk
Obviously not for the patients.
Here we go again. My hospital last Thursday cancelled all elective activity for 7 days. Nothing to do with the strike but rather the chronic lack of beds exacerbated by the inability to discharge patients not helped by the government's cuts to social care. We have also had to open a mothballed ward and of course staff it with a large number of agency staff so it's not going to help our finances either.
Why Plato haven't you been saying much about this?
Any thoughts on the PL betting? As a Spurs fan I find it hard to be objective, on betfair they're 5/1, Arsenal around 9/4 despite that lot still to visit WHL. I keep writing Leicester off, City seem to have shot themselves in the foot.
As an Arsenal fan I couldn't bring myself to do it but I thought about backing Spurs as long ago as November. They are the most complete team and seem to be playing really well.
I'm generally quite good at knowing when Arsenal are likely to trip up, and I might regret this, but I don't think Sunday will be one of them. That said, I think Leicester have a great chance to win it. What will be critical for them is putting away the average teams over the next few weeks.
A lot of people in the betting game use analytics (shots on target/quality of chance created/xG) as a big pointer towards future performance. Currently Arsenal are streets ahead, with Leicester average and Spurs poor.. so if they are right, the Arsenal are due to give a few good hidings while the others may regress
Over the last six years Wenger has turned Arsenal into an efficient but fragile team. We used boss games but be profligate in front of goal. Today we win games without looking especially good.
Spurs, on the other hand, have become a team that bosses games. Their midfield suffocates the opposition and gives them no room to move. But, as you say, they can struggle to turn that dominance into 3 points. They battered us at the Emirates, yet we could have won. And they should have won at Goodison Park.
I hope you're right and that we'll come good, but I just don't think we're good enough. We make too many stupid mistakes and if the opposition press we just can't handle it.
Apparently Gibralter will be voting in the EU referendum despite not being part of the UK.
Commonwealth citizens resident in Gibraltar don’t normally get the chance to vote in Westminster elections as no British Overseas Territories are represented in Parliament. However, unlike the other British Overseas Territories, Gibraltar is a part of the European Union, and therefore they will be allowed to have a say in the outcome.
The ridiculous thing is that my sister-in-law who has lived here nigh on 60 years has never bothered to get a British passport to go with her Italian one won't be able to vote.
France could withdraw from that deal at any time, as a few on the French Right have long demanded. It could do so tomorrow, Brexit or no Brexit. So far, it has been reluctant to abrogate the agreement, for two reasons. First, because the French government owns a large chunk of Eurostar, and reciprocal border checks make that train operate more profitably. Second, because anything that looked like an easier route into the UK might encourage more migrants to cross France, a process which brings social problems of its own.
@Indigo - The article linked to does not say the EU were 'covering up the emissions scandal'. Nor does it say that the EU Commission have 'hidden' the Volkswagen scandal. What it actually says is the EU decided that the laboratory tests weren't representative of real on-road conditions (which is well-known), and that it has been working to devise better tests.
Quite apart from anything else, the scandal was primarily about VW cheating on American tests.
And yet you have the nerve to criticise Cameron for being economical with the truth!
Results set to flood in at midnight London time (I did a mistake yesterday counting time zones) when most precincts close, and exit polls to be published at 1 AM. That's less than 7 hours from now.
It sounds a bit negative and like it's designed by - and to appeal to - the 35% who are already in the bag for Leave.
It's not a good name IMO. 'Grassroots' conjures up visions of obsessive political-party members. Your man in the white van doesn't think of himself as 'grassroots', he thinks of himself as an ordinary bloke.
I'm naturally left of centre but I do find it offputting when Labour MPs say things like 'there isn't a sensible alternative'. I mean, 85% of the rest of the world exists outside EU type structures. Fair enough if you think we should stay in the EU, but treating leaving as being nonsensical makes you sound like a zealot.
I just think some parties develop huge attachments to some positions that become shibboleths irrationally. For the Republicans, its guns and abortion. For Labour its the EU.
Well, I'm more of a Europhile than Jeremy (and it was his position that I was describing) - I positively like the EU, which Jeremy doesn't especially. But the starting point seems to me to be that the world is broadly divided into continental trading blocs at different stages of development, and we're physically in one of them.
It's certainly possible to opt to be outside all of them, but I do question whether it's a sensible option, unless one really hates the EU. It's a bit like the idea that we sometimes chuck around that London could be a separate city-state - yes, it could, but it's not obviously a good idea.
I don't hate the EU and there are aspects of it which I think are very worthwhile. But as I've said at nauseam I think its direction of travel and the implications for Britain are - as far as one can tell, given the sometimes lack of transparency and honesty by many within the EU and amongst its supporters here - not or not necessarily in Britain's best interests so I think a better arrangement for both Britain and the Eurozone is needed - either now or eventually, if Britain votes Remain, which is what I expect. A proper negotiation would have been the opportunity to do this but, sadly, appears to have been missed.
As Mr TimT has said you should not assume that those who are toying with Leave are doing so because they hate either the EU or foreigners. There are perfectly legitimate and indeed honourable reasons for being on either sides of this argument.
I would dearly love to hear the concrete positive case for remaining in the EU not just as it is now but as it is likely to develop and why the likely proposed changes will be in Britain's best interests. I would like to hear the specifics in key areas: what it means for our justice system, for our taxation system, for our welfare system, education, housing, defence etc.
What would also be nice is to have an argument which is something more solid than we will have "influence" which always strikes me as a roundabout way of the FCO saying that they can continue to be treated as important.
Perhaps as someone keen on the EU you might oblige?
It sounds a bit negative and like it's designed by - and to appeal to - the 35% who are already in the bag for Leave.
It's not a good name IMO. 'Grassroots' conjures up visions of obsessive political-party members. Your man in the white van doesn't think of himself as 'grassroots', he thinks of himself as an ordinary bloke.
The ties and union Jack blazers (I shit you not) worn by it's prominent members are even better.
Decision Desk HQ @DecisionDeskHQ 2h2 hours ago At 5PM, we will be releasing our New Hampshire bellwether primary exit poll to subscribers. Sign up here. http://daily.decisiondeskhq.com
Cheaters, they will find out 3 hours before we do.
As an aside, there's a lot of evidence that the GM Zafira diesel also had a defeat device
Why is everyone sitting on damning evidence just to screw consumers? Do we have to track what the EU commissioners use in their daily lives to see what products are safe?
Indeed, not just the response to the gotcha bit, but also to the whole concept of Al Jazeera and the Qataris having any moral leg to stand on when it gets on its high horse to pontificate.
Comments
There is nothing to agree on and no point having any sort of defence review and the views of those who disagree with Corbyn are of no consequence. If Corbyn were to become PM any enemy of Britain would know that it would not have to fear any sort of nuclear retaliation.
The argument is done in Labour. Unilateralism won the moment the membership voted Corbyn in as leader.
I'm naturally left of centre but I do find it offputting when Labour MPs say things like 'there isn't a sensible alternative'. I mean, 85% of the rest of the world exists outside EU type structures. Fair enough if you think we should stay in the EU, but treating leaving as being nonsensical makes you sound like a zealot.
I just think some parties develop huge attachments to some positions that become shibboleths irrationally. For the Republicans, its guns and abortion. For Labour its the EU.
I'd one ages ago for a kitty - and lemurs seem much more amiable.
Where is the sainted Nicola's constituency?
Only joking...
"If you don't get de Kock out, you don't win the game"
Outer: [Comparisons between Cameron and Chamberlain]
Mr X : So this is about Nazi's is it
Outer: No, Dave'e negotiation was crap
Mr X: I think you like Nazis
Outer: The Handbrake isn't to hot either
Mr X: Is it a national socialist handbrake ?
Outer: I had pizza for dinner
Mr X: I better it was swastika shaped.
etc
Mr. Pulpstar, I'm a little surprised TTIP hasn't been mentioned more, particularly by those on the left.
I come on here to read the sycophantic nonsense from tribalists, I find it interesting, to suggest that I, or anybody else, frames opinion is just bollox.
As you say, the argument is done.
"The enemies of Germany don't have to fear any sort of nuclear blowback either."
Germany is in NATO.
The membership voted for Corbyn, who is known to be a unilateralist. I'd guess the Labour membership is anti-Trident renewal from that :@)
Like my only political hero, Martin Luther King, I have a dream. Its that Cameron sees sense and campaigns to Leave, mainly because its the right decision but also because the sound of handbrakes on here would be deafening.
'' Pew defined middle class households as those earning 67%-200% of a state's median income''
Not sure this is a good example to use for a basis as to what a non-nukes Labour party will do in 2020.
@Peston ·
UKIP and Vote.Leave both back Grassroots Out to become main eurosceptic campaign for EU referendum, I learn https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/posts/1561934357464637 …
More than 2,800 operations have been cancelled ahead of a 24-hour strike by junior doctors. Is this fair? https://t.co/maY6BQU3tk
Obviously not for the patients.
Previously I think GO said they didn't want to be the officially designated group, but looks like now they will try to be....
Once Gove decides which way to jump then Vote Leave (sans Cummings) can row in behind as well.
"We are not prepared any longer to waste the country's resources on endless duplication of strategic nuclear weapons. We shall propose the re-negotiation of the Nassau agreement. Our stress will be on the strengthening of our conventional regular forces so that we can contribute our share to Nato defence and also fulfil our peacekeeping commitments to the Commonwealth and the United Nations...."
Which was classic Wilsonian fudge to keep all wings of the party united on a lowest common dominator. By 1964, thanks to Gaitskell, Labour was demonstrably multilateralist (as was Wilson himself). That is simply not the case today.
You can continue to whistle in the wind saying no-one cares about the EU, and I'll continue to ignore it. It's much more complex than relying on a Mori Index ranking as has been tediously debated on here many a time before.
I'll start reading again when you have some useful insights to offer.
In the meantime, I have better things to do with my life.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=iG1pzNiL6RY
I know there are some gamers on here: anyone fancy writing their own?
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/265425/Amazon_launches_new_free_highquality_game_engine_Lumberyard.php
with Amazon backing, this might be something to watch. I might even wipe the dust off my old 3D assets (if I can convert them, that is...)
Ah, right.
To convert a PredictIt purchase price into a BetFair decimal I would simply do 1/PredictIt price?
That sounds intriguing. I'm not technically adept (the extent of my building is a minor fiddle with RPG Maker XP and building some areas in a MUD), but I may give that a quick look. A free mini-game revolving around Sir Edric might be good marketing, time (and my potato-like technical aptitude) notwithstanding.
If you do make a game and want someone to help with the writing, give me a bell.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Alistair, that seems to be the devil in the detail of the modern world. Alas.
The remarkably crowded New Hampshire primary ballot. https://t.co/0idWNaSufk https://t.co/dFz63vRGpf
Seems like a merge between Leave.EU and Grassroots Out... VoteLeave seem to be playing the game that REMAIN would like them to in my opinion; high minded irrelevant issues that don't resonate with the public
Now a wide.
A big pro gambler I know says those two are the value bets, Man City and Leicester too short
Vardy value at 5/2 top Prem IMO and if anyone has Bet Victor accounts please get in touch
It's certainly possible to opt to be outside all of them, but I do question whether it's a sensible option, unless one really hates the EU. It's a bit like the idea that we sometimes chuck around that London could be a separate city-state - yes, it could, but it's not obviously a good idea.
I'm generally quite good at knowing when Arsenal are likely to trip up, and I might regret this, but I don't think Sunday will be one of them. That said, I think Leicester have a great chance to win it. What will be critical for them is putting away the average teams over the next few weeks.
As in all complex issues, there are trade-offs. You have decided that, for you, the trade-offs argue for Remain. For many others, myself included, the trade-offs argue for Leave. Are you doubting my intellect or reason simply because I make a judgment different from yours?
https://twitter.com/AllianceECR/status/696996671104950272
http://www.politico.eu/article/ministers-core-europe-plan-eu-future-rome-meeting-founding-members-integration/
It sounds a bit negative and like it's designed by - and to appeal to - the 35% who are already in the bag for Leave.
Why Plato haven't you been saying much about this?
Spurs, on the other hand, have become a team that bosses games. Their midfield suffocates the opposition and gives them no room to move. But, as you say, they can struggle to turn that dominance into 3 points. They battered us at the Emirates, yet we could have won. And they should have won at Goodison Park.
I hope you're right and that we'll come good, but I just don't think we're good enough. We make too many stupid mistakes and if the opposition press we just can't handle it.
http://capx.co/if-david-cameron-thinks-the-eu-wants-to-shunt-illegal-immigrants-on-to-britain-why-does-he-want-to-stay/
Quite apart from anything else, the scandal was primarily about VW cheating on American tests.
And yet you have the nerve to criticise Cameron for being economical with the truth!
Trump 33 +3
Kasich 17 +1
Rubio 14 -2
Cruz 10 0
Bush 9 0
Christie 8 +2
Results set to flood in at midnight London time (I did a mistake yesterday counting time zones) when most precincts close, and exit polls to be published at 1 AM.
That's less than 7 hours from now.
As Mr TimT has said you should not assume that those who are toying with Leave are doing so because they hate either the EU or foreigners. There are perfectly legitimate and indeed honourable reasons for being on either sides of this argument.
I would dearly love to hear the concrete positive case for remaining in the EU not just as it is now but as it is likely to develop and why the likely proposed changes will be in Britain's best interests. I would like to hear the specifics in key areas: what it means for our justice system, for our taxation system, for our welfare system, education, housing, defence etc.
What would also be nice is to have an argument which is something more solid than we will have "influence" which always strikes me as a roundabout way of the FCO saying that they can continue to be treated as important.
Perhaps as someone keen on the EU you might oblige?
At 5PM, we will be releasing our New Hampshire bellwether primary exit poll to subscribers. Sign up here. http://daily.decisiondeskhq.com
Cheaters, they will find out 3 hours before we do.
Do we have to track what the EU commissioners use in their daily lives to see what products are safe?